Look out everyone, I've been giving the subject event a bit of thought....assembling data in my questionable mental data bank (scary, isn't it? LOL).

I spent a little time reviewing Imsys Tech's Web site.  It appears to be a privately held LLC based in Stockholm (and I have friends that live in Stockholm).  They also have offices in Sunnyvale (Silicon Valley) and Dallas.

They appear to be quite focused on JAVA, though their archetecture also supports C++.  They claim their processors can run JAVA at "native" speeds.

I KNOW of only one other company that has made this claim.  Guess who?   PTSC, with regard to the SHBoom processor (designed to run C and C++, but found to run JAVA at "native" speeds).  I suspect that, since the Ignite and Inflame are based on SHBoom technology (stack-based), they share this attribute.  I could stop right here, and this event would appear quite provocative.

Being a private LLC, financials for Imsys Tech are not available for review.  Are they hurting for money?  Are they competent?  Could they take Ignite/Inflame to the next level?  Do they have a strong marketing team?

What better way to find out than to have people from PTSC, people that are fully capable of making the above assessments, gain a role in Imsys.  And there must, IMO, be something "there" or why would our guys sign up to this, considering their new roles at PTSC?  Their time is precious, so why dedicate any here?

This may be the makings of a merge or, at minimum, a partnering/technology sharing. 

Funny coincidence - one of Imsys's premier products is its IM1000 processor.  The SHBoom was AKA the PSC1000.

So, IMO, a very interesting development.

Now take a step back and think it through a little more.

Though I have never seen it in the Master Agreement between PTSC and TPL, there may be a "Non-Compete" clause in there somewhere.  Even if there isn't, and considering that PTSC is "joined at the hip" with TPL for many years to come, it seems it would be wise to totally avoid any possibility of an adversarial relationship when it comes to company activities beyond licensing of the MMP. 

Now recall that in documents relating to ownership of the individual patents of the MMP, I recall seeing that the SHBoom, at least, does not utilize (any of?) the patented technology of the MMP.  I suspect this also applies to the Ignite/Inflame.

TPL's chip design activities directly relate/depend/capitalize on MMP tech.  And based on the above, PTSC's "products" don't.  A clean separation, no conflicts - clearly different products/applications, as best as I can see.

I strongly suspect that this event is much more important than one might suspect.  I may also be an indication of Turley, and Dr. Nick, intent for the future of PTSC.  There is an obvious synergy between PTSC's old products and what Imsys is doing (with a degree of success, it appears). 

I believe something more is in the making here....much more.

But I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE

PS:  Someone please tell me again all about how incompetent PTSC management is, how they don't do anything, how they haven't done anything with the old tech., etc., etc.