There's no doubt that the 'BioAmber' name has emerged out of the manipulations, perhaps Black Swam surprises, of 2018, some we know about, some we don't. At least the business media is again talking about the technology.
In my view, there's little doubt that Eno/Visolis/PWC were surprised, when their plans surreptitiously conceived in 2017 crashed in May, eight or so months later.
My question is: In their scramble to preserve a future viable BioAmber name and product, did they succeed in throwing shareholders under the bus? That's us.
It looks like it. Perhaps Eno, as the prime Exec, initially did try to preserve something, but Eno's interests and Visolis's interests did not fully converge, and Eno was holding the short straw, especially after LCY lost its Taiwan legal case. It's unclear where PWC's loyalties lay.
With possible five governments making a play to dominate succinic acid production -- USA, Canada, PRC, ROC, and Japan ... not to mention France, perhaps Holland -- wouldn't it be obvious that the control of the patents need to be settled before other considerations? After all, BioAmber's product is a substitute for out-of-the-ground petroleum. Wouldn't a global-level deal take precedence?
Consider: how long did it take Edison and Tesla to settle their conflict over control of electricity and electrification of production? A decade or two? Can we be watching a similar kind of struggle, without identifiable human players? If so, who knows the "real players"? Who are today the people behind the struggle to control BioAmber technology? Is this even a pertinent question? If it is, what do we know? And ... when we find out, will be have any legal standing in the outcome of events?
Or are we just like leaves being tossed about on the waves during a storm at sea?
Just asking.
