might and maybe are a lot like if; so that means every company involved w/qds. Funny, when links were posted including
other companies for DD, we were informed that QD Vision, NanoSys, Nanoco,...were important. Oh, btw and that I had never
posted anything of value.....ironic, that all those other companies are now considered important.
Things now seem to be research papers have negligible value, because Big companies might be developing things in a different
(more viable) direction.
I'd think that one being objective would say that research papers may give a clue of what's happening in a given field.
In 2006, there were 600 products containing nanosize raw materials used in commercial products. Do you have any idea
what the products were or who made them?
It takes Billions to create a new revolutinary market that causes a pardigm shift, so course others will make different
claims, products, and help meet market needs. Nanoco has been making claims for years wrt cfqds.
If no explanation is required wrt other companies; then this msg bd is just about Nanotechnology and should have no bias
as to companies or research information of any kind as it all plays a part....and may impact market share,(and QMC)eventually.
