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.
Well, if they find it useful, and I think our opinions line up there, that they do appear to see the tech as useful, then yes, they may well exercise leverage to access it cheaply, but this doesn't necessarily mean they will simply use the technology without payment "software constructs are learned and hard to prove copyright."
Maybe they will buy Sigma. I mean, if the company had a market value of 100m, 50m, 25m, 15m...then I would think the odds might be slim, but if they see enough value in the technology to be co-presenting at AMUG with Sigma, (which builds upon a history of cooperative development, over time, that MTLS, not only Sigma, has not been silent about) -- and creating a record, of the tech's usefulness, with their own PR and website post of yesterday... then from multiple standpoints, in my opinion it could be worth a few million to MTLS to scoop up the technology that they have publicly identified as useful with their technology. In Materialise's words of yesterday..."Through collaborations with partners like Phase3D and Sigma Additive Solutions, AM users benefit from a technology-agnostic innovation that offers unparalleled insights into their 3D printing process for continuous improvement."
Also, in my opinion, and others' (3dprint.com "Dream 3DPrinting Mergers and Acquisitions: Who Will Buy/ Merge with Sigma Additive Solutions?"), Sigma could have value to other industry players. There are, of course, guarantees of nothing, but I'd not be surprised -- at all -- to see Sigma scooped up, particularly given its modest market value.
So, if you're a significant company working with Sigma, such as Materialise or Novanta, why, according to your perspective, not simply go it alone and take Sigma's IP for your use?
Source of the info re the presentation is Sigma's newsletter
Actually, they do appear to be presenting with Materialise and Phase3D, another small AM QA firm...Of additional interest, check out the recent article on 3Dprint.com speculating about several companies, large and small, which, in the author's opinion, could be possibilities for a strategic deal of one sort or another, involving Sigma, Phase3D among them.
In the specific case of Additive OEM machine manufacturers, in my opinion, it would in my seem to be an odd elective decision to cooperate in any form of partnership, including on a free trial basis, with a company which very has as its purpose insuring quality/identifying mistakes and problems associated with the machines you produce.
Jack, Is it your thinking that the OEMs who have identified themselves as partners of Sigma are similarly misinformed? While their indications of working with Sigma on an optional basis (optional for the customer), don't cost the OEMs money, it certainly doesn't seem to be a flattering or credibility-bolstering circumstance for the OEMs to indicate any sort of cooperation with a company that has as its purpose identifying the mistakes that the OEM's equipment produces. Why, especially if you're an EOS or an SLM, (that is, at the top of the pack) -- have anything to do with Sigma?
Also, would be really interested to know -- if you're willing to share -- what connection you may have to the industry.
Thank you
In my opinion, (as an investor who's not a technologist), the sort of technical question you're raising is likely answered (at least to my personal satisfaction), by the attachment to the company of 1. Mark Ruport (followed by) 2. Jacob Brunsberg (followed by) 3 Stephan Kuehr.
While their involvement doesn't prove that Sigma's technology will be successful...as the fate of these small companies is likely never knowable until things fully play out, to my satisfaction such industry insider affiliation and attachment makes a fundamental shortcoming of the technology, such as you seem to suggest as a possibility, unlikely.
check out...Cover Story (interview), TCT Magazine
Volume 8, Issue 6
"Power of Connected Quality:
Sigma Additive on a New Qualification Framework"
Outlook, which post? "Read Sigma’s last post to LinkedIn. The CEO basically stated that time line if at all."
Yes, and each successive CEO more appropriate for the job, IMO reflecting improving position of the company and odds for its success. Guaranties? There are none, of course, with these tiny cos fighting their way, but from a variety of standpoints, not least of which is movement at the helm, there's betterment not decline, IMO.
Thanks, Truth, for your on-going searching and sharing of relevant information. Increasingly we're hearing about enhanced focus on the importance of in-process monitoring of AM from a variety of directions.
Jack,
Appreciate your posts. Would also be of interest to hear what your experience is with metal AM.
Thanks and Best
T/L - Thank you for posting this. Interesting, as you said. Were you able to control playback? Was it only me? I'd like to play back certain segments of the podcast, but I couldn't locate control features to pause or forward or reverse. Was that your experience also?
Thanks for your thoughts. Hope they manage to add this one to the list of allowances.
15/465,384 20170266762 Response Forwarded 06-17-2020 Jeff, thanks for posting the monthly updates again this month. The response summary from the Examiner following discussion with the applicant's lawyer didn't look all that promising to me. Caveats include that I'm neither an engineer or an atty. When I've tracked the filings following other non-final rejections, including the back and forth between the Applicant and the Examiners, the arguments, at least to a lay person such as myself, have seemed more promising than on this one. Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I'm inferring from the Examiner's comments on this one, that he may perceive a lack of inventive step. Wondering (1) if you and/or others may have a similar or different impression? (2) Wondering if you or others would want to take a crack at speculating on the relative importance of receiving an allowance/protection on this particular application versus the co's existing and still in prosecution IP portfolio. Can they afford to lose a couple or few of these and still have an effective thicket? Thanks All, and Good Luck to All Longs
Link to Applicant Initiated Interview Summary... (write-up notes on page 2)
https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=KBI9Y8BJRXEAPX2&lang=DINO
What am I misunderstanding here? When I look at the Image File Wrapper for this patent application, the entry dated 2-21-20 is marked "Final Rejection," and then on 5-6-20 there's a "Notice of Appeal Filed" entry. And of course, very recently there's the notation regarding Allowance.
Ted and Jeff, what's of interest is that this, a final rejection, was overturned on appeal, right? From what I'm given to understand, the odds of successfully overcoming a final rejection aren't all that good. (Is that your sense?) Also, isn't the appeals process usually notably slower than this? It looks like the appeal was filed only earlier this month. Your impressions appreciated here, as well as your long-standing and ongoing contributions to this board. Thank you
Thoughts on this...just released today, in terms of SGLB implications? https://scitechdaily.com/breakthrough-in-laser-based-metal-3d-printing-reduces-defects/
Interesting. Maybe some of this is at once technology/ development/ refinement worth exploring for Sigma and at the same time a kind of negotiating posture with MATL and Ansys.
I've wondered if Sigma hasn't been playing those two off of each other a bit, also as a means of negotiating.
I think what he meant there was that they expect when any of these existing behemoths hopefully pull the trigger, it will be extremely well publicized and such news would sell others. And in the meantime, others are taking a wait and see approach AND Sigma isn't inclined to spend limited resources to encourage/ service others when it's the existing lengthy trials, (and their anticipated favorable outcome), that would be the most efficient way of moving things meaningfully.
Hopefully they get some raised thumbs soon.
When Ruport spoke about creating higher barriers to entry by proving predictive information for the end user about builds that would work, this sounded like he was referring to simulation software. Rice indicated on the Q3 call that Sigma's data would supply Materialize's software. So, when Ruport talks about raising barriers to entry via providing predictive information, is he talking about merging Printrite with existing simulation software...say with Materialise's existing tech and/or Ansys'? Or is he talking about Sigma organically trying to develop some sort of predictive software as an adjunct to Printrite?
In my opinion, IF the company has that sort of potential, (750m market cap) anywhere in view, and the managerial capability to execute and make that possible, it would be illogical for mgmt to subject their own warrants and options to the sort of mega-dilution you're referencing.
If they can demonstrate that anything like that sort of outcome, 750m market cap, is anywhere in view then they certainly should be able to obtain a few million dollars in financing, in the coming weeks, from some other source, and return the 1.5m together with an additional 375k. If they have that option in the deal...(?)
That may have been their plan, (or goal), when they entered into the recent preferred deal.
We'll see. Only time will tell.
Silver, There's quite a bit of complexity to the documents and I've spent a commensurate amount of time trying to figure out what could be what. I haven't reached any conclusions about which I can claim confidence BUT...what I think MAY be the case, and would be most interested in your opinion about this - is that the limited waiver looks like it may provide a window of opportunity during which the lockout from the company offering additional shares is waived, in the event that the company can demonstrate that they have a bona fide opportunity to undertake another offering of at least 5 million, (letter of opinion from an investment banker and such), -- and then there are some other complexities to the formula that makes the waiver able to be triggered...
Wasn't it you who highlighted 125% buyout provision/ option for Sigma in this deal? The institutions paid 1.5 million, right? So for an additional 375k, (plus the 1.5m paid)...could Sigma buy back all the recent preferred D shares? The long and the short of it -- no pun intended -- could be that Sigma mgmt was pretty sure they could likely raise larger dollars soon enough and buy their way out of the recent deal with the institutions.
Totally not able to say whether this is the case, but that's my hopeful read.
Also, why did they file the limited waiver yesterday, after the other filings? IF they working toward buying back the preferred shares and thus conceiving of that deal as a bridge sort of financing, effectively, might they have wanted to clue shareholders in that they MAY be working in this direction, and so chose to file the limited waiver yesterday, (which looks to be an exhibit to the agreement, so we could see the limited waiver?
The above is all speculation, TOTALLY.
In regard to companies entering Sigma's pipeline, if the industry expects Sigma/Materialise to introduce a joint solution wouldn't it be logical for cos not already in Sigma's evaluation pipeline to wait and see when and what that offering consists of? This would seem especially likely for the many companies that are already customers of Materialise, don't you think?
Silver,
Your take on implications for Sigma?
Jeff - (Sigma license from GE you mean, right?)
1. Are you referring to TEP/TED?
2. Whatever aspect/s of PR3D that could theoretically require licensing of the tech covered in the GE patent that you've identified, if that were the case, wouldn't we likely see, if we were to review the SGLB patents, some overlap of references to prior patents and inventors -- that is -- some indications to support the theory of infringement, per cross-referencing between the SGLB patents and this GE patent you've uncovered?
3. The pub date is June 23, '16 so if this patent presents an issue for SGLB then it would appear that Sigma has known about this for greater than 3 year's time, for whatever that's worth, right?
I believe this is the exercise price based on the formula that was set for establishing an exercise price for certain of Rice's option awards, which if I recall correctly is the higher of the average share price over the course of the month in which the options are awarded -- in this case, June 2018 -- or the closing price on the day of options award, (last day of the month). So, this filing, which we've seen for April and May option awards to John RIce, as well, I think regards the awarding of options to Rice rather than the exercise of options by Rice, which would be a purchase of shares.
Hi Ted, Here's a youtube video of a Senvol presentation. It would seem that there may be some overlap between Senvol and Sigma's technologies. Any additional opinion you and others may be able to offer, if you have the opportunity to listen to the presentation, would be appreciated.
Perhaps, as you said in your post copied below, their in-situ technology isn't particularly sophisticated....I can only say that from the lay perspective, when you listen to presentations such as this, there's a sense of similarity and an appearance of the technologies' descriptions running together, and that makes an engineer's opinion and ability to point out distinctions all that much more appreciated.
Thank you
Ted and Jeff, as engineers among us, if either of you guys have an awareness of what the differences are, or appear to be, between Sigma and Senvol's technologies... I'd be interested and appreciative of your perspectives there.
Thank you
Does anyone know approximately how recently this appeared on Farinia's website? There doesn't seem to be a date attached.
Thank you
Maxin - Would you have the patent reference numbers for the 4 patents you refer to as issued?
Thank you
Do you recall the due date for the remaining principal balance on the note? Wasn't this the note that was paid down by 50% and the remaining balance due date extended?
I don't disagree that it'll be a comfort when the lien is removed, but I don't view the patent as owned by the lien holders. This is much like a mortgage on a home held by a mortgage company. Yes, if you were to default the lien could be exercised and the house foreclosed upon, but so long as you're not irresponsible and put yourself in a position to default, the house remains your property. I would be shocked if Sigma defaulted on its repayment to the financiers who hold the lien and lose the patent. But again, I don't disagree that it will be nice to see the balance of the loan paid off and the lien removed.
This is pure CEO applying business smarts sort of move, in my view. Before I had heard the explanation about commercial sales focus vs R&D I had read into Morph's not having the latest PR3D that Rice would have wanted Medeira to pay for it. It looked to me -- and continues to -- that Rice wants to hold out the value of PR3D from Morf until whatever potential deal that may be struck is struck, so that Sigma gets the most attractive terms possible, should a deal involving Sigma come together. To park the product with Morf, particularly the latest version, and then wait to see what place there may be in a possible future deal with Morf, and at what cost/contribution Morf invites Sigma to participate, might be a CTO move, but it wouldn't be a CEO move.
Thanks, Z.
If the headline read "Honeywell Wins..." then that might be a different circumstance, but I tend to think that GE wants no part of Sigma and this doesn't necessarily reflect that they think Sigma's technologies are worthless. I don't claim to be certain, but if you look back at my posts around the issue of the America Makes report I've speculated for some time that there could be something less than fair and objective in the treatment of Sigma by GE.
"General Electric (GE) Global Research Scientists Win $9 Million for Digital Twin Technology Program"
The process and protocol for determining who's in and who's out may not work the way you indicate.. Maybe the Office of Naval Research taps a corporate leader, in this case GEA, and GEA assembles its choice of teammates.
Jackle, What an enjoyable response. If you would please further indulge, an explanation of your thinking would be much appreciated. Also, with respect to references to Honeywell and in-situ and the absence of Sigma as a partner -- if you could please put these details in context...
I would speculate that Sigma's absence as a partner could be explained as simply as to say that there appears to be bad blood between GEA and Sigma, but your thoughts and Jeff, Ted, Vis and any other folks with knowledge, appreciated.
Thank you
General Electric (GE) Global Research Scientists Win $9 Million for Digital Twin Technology Program -
Would appreciate some other weigh-ins on this...
Capt, what was the name of the biotech that Lincoln Capital funded in which you had a position?
Thank you