Our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode with QuotedData's Edward Marten has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Perhaps on second thoughts, I was a little harsh on you back there. It is good that points of concern are raised on a discussion board like this. But in my opinion, it should be the privilege of shareholders only. Those with a genuine intetrest in such matters.
As a further aside, back in 2003/4, I took a MSc degree in Natural Resource Management at Cranfield University, as a mature student. We discussed 'Smart Agriculture' back then. The term IoT hadn't emerged yet, but the concept is not new (nor of course it's application to other sectors such as mining etc). It's satellite connectivity that's new. See the section titled 'Drawbacks or disadvantages of Agriculture Sensors' on the page below. Of course there are other players.
Link :
https://www.rfwireless-world.com/Terminology/Advantages-and-uses-of-Agriculture-Sensors.html#:~:text=Sensors%20used%20in%20smart%20farming%20are%20known%20as%20agriculture%20sensors.&text=These%20sensors%20provide%20data%20which,changes%20in%20the%20environmental%20conditions.&text=These%20sensors%20are%20installed%20on,used%20in%20the%20agriculture%20industry.
(cont) or even better, any of the SPACS.
The trouble is that I'm not sure it matters one jot. I'm sure that if I was to waste half an hour, I could come up with a long list of products that are regularly for sale by successful companies and that are not proteced by a patent. Market position and commercial relationships count for a lot and Wyld are doing well in this regard.
The idea of installing a small transmitter in an IoT device and relaying it's signal via satellite, given a local dearth of ground connections, can hardly be an original idea. Ditto this 'game theory' approach, as we see. And yet no one has done it, despite Wyld experiencing an extremely positive market response. And, as they freely admit, it may be that, in a typically fast moving tech industry, another approach will emerge. Well, that's typical for any tech product. My own career spanning 35 years in the IT sector saw my employment prospects evaporating overnight on three occasions as the tech that was made by my employer became superceded. The Apple Mac vs prior Unix work stations for image retouching was an example. Nothing to do with patents. Just a different approach.
This is all part of the risk. I'm not sure it needs to be considered in the depth to which you are doing so. This IP risk is a given. A patent would be nice but to be honest, it's not worth a hell of a lot in IT. There's always more than one way to skin a cat.
As for you not being invested but believing you have some sort of patronising responsibility to keep us mere mortals informed... I have a particular bugbear about this and have come to susp[ect that people who do this are fairly elderly, backward looking, brexit supporting conservative, of whom such a patronising attitude would be typical. Honestly, I don't know where you live but go out for a walk, take up a hobby. Or something. You're wasting your precious life my friend.
If you want a good spat about the wisdom of being invetsed, go and take a look at EUA, or perhaps PIR.
Sorry. Slight oversight. There are three tests. Novelty, Inventive Step an Industrial Applicability.
I might file a patent on a shipyard mouse trap that drops the ship under construction onto a mouse beneath it based on sensing the clicking sound of the mouses claws on the dry dock floor.
It sounds novel and is being applied to an industrial environment but it is likely that prior art includes dropping a heavy weight on the mouse. It's also just silly.
https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP21709349&lng=en&tab=doclist
12.05.2022 International preliminary examination report - points I-VIII
https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=L2PPOLJQD1MA5H4&appnumber=EP21709349&showPdfPage=all&proc=
Box No V on Page 2
The application is apparently novel and has industrial applicability but fails in respect of an inventive step based either on the existence of prior art or a consideration of what a person of skill in the art, posita, would have done presented with the same problem or otherwise be considered obvious.
The observation was submitted just prior to publication of the latest opinion, rejection, where Wyld were claiming an inventive step based on the use of Game Theory. The submission gives an example of prior art, Jan 2011, which references the use of Game Theory and in particular battery power and signal strength as input criteria. The examiner used other considerations, D1-D4 elsewhere.
No I am not invested and this is not being done for the purposes of making a decision as to whether to do so. However if I were to invest it would not be in the expectation that Wyld are likely to gain any meaningful protection on their technology. As you might guess I do not consider it to be very likely.
I am also doing this because it is information that would be considered to be publicly available but others are most certainly not aware of its existence and have to rely on Wyld to give a fair picture of likelihood which they are most certainly not doing.
https://attachment.news.eu.nasdaq.com/a3d76ca049ee5784db72ace1edf527e95
Your enticement to invest:
"Wyld Networks strengthened its technical and commercial position, protecting its IP and brand, with a published patent application for its cutting-edge technology and secured trademarks for the Wyld brand."
The warped caveat:
"Intellectual property rights
The Group’s continued operation depends to a certain extent on protecting its technology through patents or other intellectual property rights. The field in which the Group is developing its product is undergoing rapid technological development. There is thus a risk that new technologies will be developed that will circumvent the Group’s
patents."
The Translation:
Someone else may have already thought of our cutting edge technology but ¯\_(?)_/¯
Don't understrabnd. The doc states that Wyld's present claims are indeed 'novel with respect to the prior art' and then goes on to detail some' prior art' that appears to repeat Wyld's claim, but preceding Wyld.
BS are you invested? Or is all this research to help decide to invest or not?
https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=EP.2021053561.W&lng=en
17/05/2022
There is no obligation for Wyld to comment or otherwise respond. There is no obligation on the offices to take the observations into account.
PCT Administrative Instructions Part 8.
https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/texts/pdf/ai.pdf