More to this than you'll admit.
You do know that the controller interface is proprietary too, right?
The entire system is a proprietary linked series of electro-mechanical sub-assemblies.
Just b/c you have the instrument license doesn't mean you can just slap on any old controller. Those components have to match, to communicate and control the operation of the end effectors. That's a design patent too. Both halves.
Not seeing anything about a Surgeon Console component, hand controller, or controller link as a licensed patent description. This may be an issue for your theory. The vague nature of the licenses cuts both ways. You and I see it differently.
I'll take a different tack.
I'll admit, $10M for what they have is a steal. But, do they have all they need to make a SP? In less than 5 years? If I'm correct the answer is absolutely NO.
Let me argue a different point about your theory regarding MDT's reluctance to own TMDI. Would ANY competitor want to let a turn-key ENOS loose in the marketplace, with a 5 year lead?
Would ANY competitor welcome the thought of having TMDI and another global medical device company as a competitor too? Don't think they do.
Let me argue another different point about your theory regarding MDT's reluctance to own TMDI. What about the +$20 billion revenue from the next 25 years? MDT can't participate for at least another 5 years. But ISRG, or another global medical device company does? MDT won't be able to participate and capture an entirely new market? Or capture some of ISRG's customers, AND lets ISRG protect their existing customer base and establish new customers with ENOS?
Say that out loud to yourself. Please.
In one decision they give up a 5 year lead in a new market, don't get exclusivity, lose 50% of the revenue, divide the market, establish another formidable competitor - with a new LARGE revenue stream, and fight against their own tech? And declare to the world that it was their PLAN and INTENT to create all of this chaos for themselves?
Really? That's your theory? I don't see it, and I don't think Martha's reputation and ego will either.
Here's another thought. ISRG can transact 6M new shares at the current market price and it will only dilute their outstanding shares by about 5%. And of that $6B, will be able to recover that cost in approximately 7-8 years (best guess) based on sp appreciation, and additional net new revenue. $6B is peanuts, especially if they can keep from obsoleting their existing systems sooner than if MDT had an exclusive ability to launch ENOS within the next 2 years. And all that juicy IP for the next 20-30 years. Knowing Martha is stewing over it the whole time?
And you think it's a good idea if MDT works for another +5 years, while ISRG runs rampant?
The audience will come to their own conclusions. But, I don't see it.
JMO.
Good luck to all. Regards,BK.
