Ted, I have no idea to what extent, if any, Morpho improved its technology after losing the TSA tender because of "false positives." I do know that the TSA competition between Implant, Smiths and Morpho began in June of 2014, and that Morpho introduced its new 4DX months later, and started winning tenders under ECAC guidelines in Europe. I also don't know if, as you suggest, Morpho won those contracts because they were "in the bag all along", but if so, it must have been a big bag, including as it does Germany, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Denmark, Austria Portugal and the UK. What I DO know is, if I were running Morpho Detection and I couldn't even compete for the large, prestigious TSA contract, I'd have R&D working on fixing the issue 24x7. And when I did fix matters, I wouldn't spotlight an old problem.
Morpho's technology may still be inferior to Implant's. I don't know. What I do know is, Morpho's new 4DX sniffer has won lots of business in Europe, business that I assume Implant competed for. As I've said in the past, technology isn't the only factor when companies select a supplier. Other critical factors include distribution, manufacturing capacity, quality, turnaround time, service capabilities, pricing and others. I think we delude ourselves by constantly saying to each other, "we've got the best technology, we've got the best technology, we've got the best technology..." It a form of magical thinking. We've been told by McGann and other within the company that we're the best, but we sure as hell haven't won all, perhaps even most, ECAC contracts. In fact, we haven't won much of anything lately.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
