RE: guessing @ why AAPL ...I do have to admit after watching this board for awhile, I'm really surprised at the little amount of asshattery that usually runs rampant around here.
Anyways I've invested very heavily in OPL, and am way overweight on this stock (and my ACB is just above $1.. Count me in the boat that hasn't been thrilled with the stock performance, or really the market conditions as a whole.. yowza). The reason why I am so heavily invested in this stock (and yes, with the price and it being on the venture, I am taking a HUGE gamble) is that I have worked in the IT industry for a long time; and here's my 2 cents on this technology should it be proven:
1. We do not want someone to buy this technology, we want to license it based on market vertical with a guarantee to whoever licenses it that they have sole access to the technology (provided they meet certain minimums in royalty numbers of course) -- providing the companies an opportunity to have a serious market edge, while also driving up the potential licensing costs. Take the smartphone market for example; if the power consumption is even a 50% reduction with a quantum leap in processing speed -- and then pitch it to manufacturers of the Android phones, Apple for the iPhone, Microsoft for the Windows 7 mobile platform -- they will all want it, and the tech goes to the highest bidder.
2. Don't look at Google or other companies as potential suitors to buy it and fabricate the processors for any vertical. It's going to be the AMD's and Intel's of the world that we want to license our product for the server industry. There's already been constant pressure to deliver more processing power in a smaller footprint, with reduced power consumption. There's a reason data centers charge per kw hour now, and why data centers advertise their green plans and carbon footprint. HP, Dell, hell even Cisco has moved into the blade center world, and there aren't any major players anymore that solely rely on dedicated single box servers. Virtualization has pushed the technology hard into a (I hate to use this damn marketing term) "cloud" environment, even if you are using it internally only -- by virtualizing the servers, it's hardware agnostic and CPU/RAM can be added on the fly to the running OS from a pool of resources. Anything that can shrink the power consumption of that pool while boosting the processing power to these degrees (again if proven) is a very disruptive force in the way things are done in the silicon valley, and will resonate deep in the industry if they get the right partner on board to start licensing the technology. If Intel or AMD gets the primary licensing rights, we cover off ALL manufacturers of server/desktop equipment - we want this, not it going to a manufacturer like IBM or HP.
3. The tablet market is exploding, and will only continue to do so -- and again, the reduction in power consumption + increased processing speed results in a long battery life + far lighter weight devices. Imagine an iPad that could last a week on a single charge at half the weight? Anyone that's used a first generation tablet for a few hours holding it would welcome this!
4. The key (and I think the risk still) for a little company like this, is speed to market. Moore's law dictates a doubling of the number of transistors on a single IC. Again if this is proven, we take Moore's law, crumple it up and spit on it for the short term. Patents or not though, the companies that don't gain access to the technology through licensing will be dumping every $ they have into competitive research (if they aren't already, I'd be surprised if we are the only ones this far down the rabbit hole). Speed to delivery is paramount, and personally if OPEL doesn't start with rapid announcements and business plans after the investment bank is selected, I'm going to reduce my position significantly -- Time to delivery in technology is everything, and this isn't something they can sit on for 3-5 years to design and deploy (nor does it sound like they intend to).
5. We have BAE systems validating the technology so far to date, this is a major player in the defense space and not a company that's likely to be corrupted/easily swayed in their valuations. To me it's a major de-risking of the technology as presented today (non-integrated). Now we wait for the integration piece to fall into place.
I believe this stock is going somewhere quickly, and as I stated above my only reservation is if the small management team doesn't have the skillset and capability to produce an integrated model quickly and get it licensed -- it's not a risk of the technology not working.
Do your own DD as always, just an IT guy's perspective.