Wristed end effectors.
ENOS's end effectors have already been shown to be able to work in close proximity to each other, and reach in front, or behind each other. So one can support the procedure from behind the tissue while the other works in front. Reach, and working in coordinated motion is the issue, an issue that ENOS does not have. Again, I'll defer to Dr. Estape - World renowned Gyn Oncologist Robotic Assisted surgeon. His credibility is far beyond any comments from non-RAS surgeons that may be posting on this forum.
We've entered a new phase in the TMDI/ENOS/TLL development cycle. Mc laid out the details very well and distinguished the differences between MP and SP and the obvious benefits of the ENOS design. It's the first public salvo, to begin to establish and manage public expectations about the value of the company. Compelling IP, overwhelming amount of IP, and more to arrive daily. ISRG would be stupid not to take a swing at this "little-engine-that-could." MDT would be stupid to provide them with the opportunity. Lot's can happen between now and December. MDT won't let TMDI get out from under the Loan provisions IMO, so they'll have to come up with a boatload of more cash.
Upon doing further research, while over on another site that sounds a lot like stock hits, there's a surgeon that's reviewed vicarious sp unit. In his professional opinion - it has some extreme issues and limitations. No love over there for this other product, or those the would propose its superiority. Opinion based on experience, and a professional that uses daVinci. Just more competitor, and professional references from which everyone here may consider relevant to ENOS.
I'll address this "look at all of the money flowing into the other alternate product." First, those who have, and continue to invest did so to be able to get shares issued prior to the IPO. They're only there to grab the initial offering increase in sp, if/when it occurs. That's TBD. Venture capital companies do this daily. So, I'd classify them as fair-weather-friends. Also, the alternate product would not have the coverage they currently receive, if they didn't merge with the SPAC. Let's keep the situational awareness clear.
Looks like all the pre-presentation chatter about a raise was settled pretty clearly. For now..... or at least until sometime in 2022. But again, if you continuously rant about the possibility of rain, it will eventually rain. Doesn't make you a profound pontificator.
That pretty much clearly sums up the FUD, and faux proposed superiority subject matter.
Again, it's no surprise to anyone that reads my messages, that anyone from the "alternate point of view" group has never answered the question(s) regarding how MDT makes a SP RAS device to compete against TMDI/ENOS from 15 patents. Or how they jump ahead 4-5 years in development, or the risk of developing the additional components and USPTO approvals, additional $350M funding, and the fall-out from the BoD of not addressing the ease from which a unique SP RAS device may be acquired. Which supports the entire statement as to how MDT will conduct business now, and in the future.
If you have a problem, and the money to solve the problem, then you don't have a problem. This premise is only valid if MDT wishes to compete in the RAS medical device market segment, and compete for RAS medical device revenue for the next 20-30 years. Such a ridiculous premise. Unless the CEO and CoB has specifically stated that exact strategy for moving ahead of the competitive business environment, instead of developing competitive products organically.
Ignoring the question does not make it go away. It only makes the question more important and germane to the outcome of the present business environment.
Good luck to all. Regards,BK.
AI
