Don, I have a serious question about LUMM.
I've watch from afar and feel bad about the disappointments you must be suffering with LUMM. Pat Mudge to date has the best of the argument about LUMM, you must admit, unless and until the company proves its bona fides as a going concern. Which leads me to wonder about this --
I recall that back in the 'pennies' days more than a year ago, LUMM was claiming that some sort of 'solgel process' gave it a competitive edge in lowering manufacturing costs. Various web sites, including one for the company, showed static photos purporting to demonstrate the process. But when others made a patent search to learn more about them, they came up with nothing. At that point someone at LUMM -- possibly a Steve Litwin (sp?) in IR -- was said to have explained, possibly in an email or maybe elsewhere, that LUMM didn't want to file publicly for any patents, supposedly because it didn't want to educate the competition (something I confess that made no sense to me).
Not long after, however, it was disclosed that LUMM didn't own any patents, it was merely licensing two 'solgel' patents from the co-founder by the name of Sanjay (sp?) something-or-other.
Now I see this Sanjay has left the company. So, in addition to the prolonged lack of any sales, the departure of Molex as a venture partner, and sector-wide problems, what exactly does LUMM have left by way of any unique technological edge, competitive advantage, or other component of intrinsic value? If Sanjay continues to license his patents to LUMM, what are the durational and other terms of the patents? How central are they to whatever LUMM is trying to do?
In brief, what does LUMM make and to whom do they sell it? Sorry to be so basic but it really does puzzle me. Thanks in advance for your reply. |
