Hi again Bruce,
I didn't overlook the importance of your points, in fact I tried to briefly address each of them, but will expand as follows:
In response to your point #2 about Mike Fernandez having EPA experience and contacts: I believe a corporate partner could have been found that has significantly more knowledge about the dozens of critical success factors than Fernandez could be expected to have. I do not know Fernandez, but having contacts at the EPA does not even come close to having what is required to commercialize a new technology. An "auto-emissions commercial partner" would be much better suited to addressing these numerous issues.
Your point #3 regarding TMMI allowing them to recoup their investment: If ECC's technology has value, they could recoup their investment in many ways other than going public or teaming with TMMI. This could be done by licensing the technology to a major corporation - already acquainted with the emissions industry - with any number of approaches to compensation, including up-front cash and/or royalties. Also, at no time did I mean to imply they should seek venture capital, as I agree this is an unwise approach.
Your point #4 regarding TMMI having a lot assets (and access to funds - from your last post): TMMI has access to funding??? Who would finance a software company, just out of bankruptcy, that wants to commercialize an automotive product? Venture capital, at a heavy cost, is the only thing that comes to my mind.
Again, my only point is that if ECC's technology has value, I think they could have worked with a company that has all the pieces in place to commercialize the device. This of course is just one small item related to TMMI's business. I happened to pick up on only this item since I find it unusual. I appreciate our discussion on this topic. |
