While PatentVest criteria is not without merit, the two examples shown are both B to C companies. Companies that combine design, manufacturing, assembly, and sales in the product they sell to their customer. They own their process from womb to tomb. They implement those patents into their own processes at their discression.
Integral does not. Big difference. Jasper does not either. Integral has made it clear from the beginning that they do not want to get their hands dirty. Their IP and those patents are for sale. Period. Even Jasper, it seems to have turned out, is solely a "manufacture for hire" B to B company. Both are at the mercy of another business customer that has a metal equivalent on their shelves already. Unless their customer complains about the weight or cost of the product they purchase, there is no impetus for them to change. So far, that impetus has not shown itself. There is no evidence to show that it is the result of market dynamics or Integral/Jaspers failure to demonstrate a case for plastic over proven metal products already in place.
In the end cost and performance rule. The recent article about Electriplast specifically noted that testing showed Electriplast performance was only "close" to that of metal. Cost is anyones guess. No figures have been given, but it is known that besides paying for the pellets, and a patent royalty of some kind, there will be re-tooling costs and possibly some new supplier contract costs. The last two are one-time costs but you can expect that the metal suppliers won`t take it laying down either. There is sure to be some fat they can eliminate from their processes that will effect their bottom line. Who knows. Don`t count on Integral to offer up any data. The marketplace will tell....or possibly has told.
Anything else is unsupported speculation.
Thin
AI
