Thanks for the post on the conference call. Interest from ML and others is an excellent development. I think the JSI news is a real and important development, and very positive.
However, I am extremely skeptical about BriteLight. For over 2 years now, JMAR has been "talking" about laser machining and the application of BriteLight technology to this market. Over a year and a half ago, they funded an independent market study to try to understand the advantages of the BriteLight. Elizabeth posted on this:
From Elizabeth Smallfelt, #2644, Jul 31, 1997
Regarding JMAR's patents on the high brightness laser technology -- they are very broad patents. Here's another tidbit from the annual meeting regarding this technology:
JMAR hired a market research company in Silicon Valley to do a market survey on their high brightness laser technology. This was a "blind" survey - JMAR's name was not used. The market research co. did in-depth interviews with 50 companies - 25 laser companies and 25 laser-user companies. The study described six different kinds of laser characteristics which the companies were then asked to comment on. They all said:
1. There is nothing like that anywhere in the world.
2. If there was such a thing, we would buy it.
3. We don't believe it can be made.
Well, JMAR has it NOW. It is just a matter of scaling it up for commercial usage.
This is the technology I mentioned in an earlier post where I said they obtained the patent in just 3 months -- a very fast patent approval!
Also, remember that Santa Fe Laser was nearly acquired to provide manufacturing for BriteLight.
Some time ago I posted a message that raised some questions about the JMAR "story." I think JMAR may be an excellent little company with a lot of potential, but I have concerns that it lacks honest, competent management, open disclosure and clear direction. I don't think the company is telling the investors what is really happening, and I think a lot of that may be due to a lack of clear vision. Here are some more questions and concerns I think all of us should consider:
If the BriteLight really possessed the significant technical advantages JMAR claims, then it shouldn't it have caused a small storm in the laser community by now, and shouldn't there be some commercial application already being sold or at least in development? It has been well over a year, perhaps almost 2 years, since the marketing study. What is holding this back?
Note the optimism in that Jul 97 post: JMAR has this technology "now" and all it requires is some "scaling...up for commercial usage." Sound familiar? That message is 14 months old.
(Please note: This is no reflection on Elizabeth: she does an excellent job of reporting and posting. I suspect she just posted what she was told by JMAR).
Why wasn't Santa Fe Laser acquired? Why hasn't some other experienced laser manufacturer been acquired? If JMAR needed Santa Fe a year ago, why don't they need a company like that now? What has changed?
JMAR has not sold laser systems for all of 1997 and 1998. In 1996, these systems accounted for some notable revenue, but JMAR has not been in the laser systems business for almost 2 years now. Why is this? How can a company be in a business, but not in the business?
In your post, you said that JMAR is claiming to be doing "demonstrations currently and negotiating possible OEM relationships in regards to Brightlight [sic]". I suspect that the "demonstrations" are still being done with the so-called MicroLight-1000. You can tell from the video this is not a commercial product at all, nor even a prototype. It is breadboard, a lab setup that is not remotely close to what would be used in a real product. This kind of hype is what makes me so skeptical about everything Martinez has to say. Also, if an OEM has not been won by now, the product will not roll out by the end of the year. That is way too fast. My estimate would be a minimum of 6 months once JMAR has some form of relationship with an OEM. Remember, for an OEM the "design-in" may be complicated, and that assumes the basic technology works and can be packaged effectively.
My guess is that the BriteLight as originally conceived does not work well for most laser machining applications, and it is being changed to increase its average power and repetition rate while bringing the peak power down. The high peak powers and short pulse widths, the "high brightness" that supposedly made it unique, are not going to play a significant role in applying it to things like drilling holes.
I am also guessing that JMAR may be in a race with other companies to use shorter wavelengths effectively for very small features. This is of critical importance. The BriteLight can do IR, visible, and UV, and if the UV version can be brought out with holographic masking for lithographic type machining (like ESI does), then it could be a killer laser. BUT NOT BECAUSE OF SHORT PULSE WIDTH OR HIGH POWER! No, it is because of the quality of the beam as compared to the other significant UV source, excimer lasers. The DPSS may also have a lower total cost of ownership over excimers.
This is what JMAR's competition is trying to develop, and DPSS for UV may have the winning advantage. This being so, JMAR is not in a position of unique advantage, but in a race, and JMAR does not seem to be sprinting on this.
Without a fast product development cycle, how does JMAR expect to compete against large, well established manufacturers in the laser machining market place, like ESI? How does JMAR expect to compete against large, well established laser manufacturers like Lambda-Physick and Lumonics?
JMAR may be in an excellent position with respect to developing a competitive laser for micro-machining and other forms of laser processing. BriteLight may be an important product. Applications of BriteLight may be just around the corner.
Maybe.
But I don't see anything in the long history of this "development" to make me believe it. What I see is either fabrication or a development project that has floundered, been mismanaged, underfunded, or neglected for other reasons. As I said in an earlier post, isn't this "story" getting a little stale? If something is not rotten, then JMAR has a definite problem with the telling of the story. And I don't buy that it has to do with protecting the information from competitors.
I also believe that if I can see this pattern, then an experienced analyst could certainly see it and probably a lot more. JMAR has a serious credibility problem, and I personally believe it is because of real problems with management. I don't know enough about investing and professional managers to know if it matters much, but I am having a tough time convincing myself that JMAR can deliver more than the "story". Obviously, if the BriteLight "story" sounds a little too much like a used car lot pitch, the rest of Martinez's "treasure chest of technologies" is tarnished as well. If JMAR has the potential it appears to have, then this is not just a shame: it is a crime against the shareholders.
I think JMAR should address this investor relation/communication problem immediately with a much more honest, open disclosure of the REAL state of affairs regarding BriteLight, and some indication of their strategy to make this product effective. If JMAR won't step up to this, then the Board of Directors needs to step up to its responsibilities, and I believe that is overdue. I believe the "problem" JMAR has in attracting serious investment is competent management and credibility. Right now I smell "vapor ware", and I suspect I am not alone. |
