RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Hello folks, and you too, Cybermonkey, lol. Ideas?Yes, I was suprised that they would attempt 40 patents on software. Doubt there would be much point - a bit like filing a patent on maths.
As you say. the software is published, so somewhat protected, but never a good idea ot base a business on a patent unless it is rock solid Ask IMB and Pheonix.
They will do well becuase they can do the job and do it well. Eventually there may be competions, but unlikely in the near term.
Just like to keep the facts straight in my head.
A couple follow on points:
I wonder if the programmers are in house while the 40 or so analysts are contracted as needed from the industry.
keeping the code shielded in house is a god idea I think. Mind you, expensive to pay salaries to good coders.
I assume the coders aren't geologists, and so aren't likely to transfer the knowledge - they just apply their sought-after experise to many companies.
While the field experts aren't liklely to be machine language coders. So not a chinese wall per se, but something.
The other potentially useful thing in the monthly subscription model they are proposing for their AI process. w
This would allow them to move their employees who currently have to do the work and write the reports into paid for training and the bulk of th work moved to the companies themselves.
As well as constant revenue. Sounds good on paper, but needs constand code improvements and GUI development, and does open it up to competition from the tech field itself.
Luckily the market is niche.