Well now. We have to be a little bit careful here don't we?
Take the example of the Mobile Phone makers like Apple and Samsung. Continuous battles over patent infringement and the costs of litigation therin. Here's the rub. How do we know that the Big players won't just infringe the patent and rely on the fact that SHMP et al cannot afford the costs of litigation. That's the first point. The second is, even if they do successfully pursue a case for patent infringement and get an award, a fine will be nothing to some of these blue chip industry players.Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, what the patent does do is lay out very clearly the process and what about that process is actually covered under patent rights. How do we know bigger players cannot just take the technology, replicate it, but tweak it in such a way as to a) ensure no patent infringement occurs and b) achieve similar (or indeed better) outcomes in terms of end product production. You see, no one seems to be considering the fact that a patent is and of itself, nothing until it has proven revenue stream potential and saleable products associated with it. My money is on one of two things. Either a quick BO at a chepie cheap price, or (more likely scenario) consigning SHMP into irrelevance by subtle modifying of the process so as to achieve similar results, without infringement of the patent (or at moderate cost in terms of any legal implications, should infringement be proven). Thus, those of you relying on the now issued patent as a driver of higher stock prices, independent of proven and sustainable (upscalablable) huge revenue streams are in for a nasty shock imho and considerable experience on the matter. That's the supply side now let's finally, consider the demand side. Do people generally dine out on luxury goods like shrimp when a recession hits, as is forecast to happen within 2 years? Once the product hit's the end user, it's largely a homogeneous offering isn't it, requiring of further processing to create any differentiation and value added. This means addition of flavours, special recipes etc. What SHMP supply (or intend to supply as remember, thus far they've sold nada), is a WIP ingredient further conversion. That is all they supply i.e. one product a one trick pony. The inferred assumption that there is an insatiable demand for this product is misguided as it is highly seasonal and income dependent and the fact that the company has only one offering in their portfolio is a considerable worry. It would only take one news article rumour or whatever BS that Shrimp has been proven to be a carcinogenic for example, and whether true or false, the lights go out for SHMP. Hmmm, still a nasty smell of dead fish around here.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
