BRN Discussion Ongoing

[TECH]

Hi TFM,

The thing which distinguishes partnerships is that they involve some degree of product co-development.

At this early stage of commercialization, almost exactly none of our partners or customers will have in-house engineering expertise and familiarity with NN, let alone Akida digital SNN.

The first engineering graduates who have met Akida will only just be emerging.

Contrast this with ARM, where every man and his dog (in the processor field) will be familiar with the implementation of ARM processors.

So I think we will gradually be able to ramp up the straight licensing model as familiarity with the ins-and-outs of Akida become more widely known.

Hi Dio,

I agree with your views...my previous post was slightly sarcastic, in that a few shareholders have contacted me, including German posters
who all seem to think that the business model has changed somehow, and Partnerships are the new currency, while they are extremely
important for us to get established and grow, they are not a replacement for IP Licenses, now or ever.

As many shareholders are hanging out for IP announcements, reflecting license fee revenue they assume that Partnerships are now the
default go to, brought on by anxiety or fear that no revenue indicates the demise of our company.

We have never, ever been in such a strong position, I personally see no reason whatsoever for us not to succeed moving forward,
I can visualize us at the bottom part of the hockey stick heading toward the curve upwards over the next 10 months and accelerating
throughout 2025 and beyond.

Cheers....Chris (Tech)

 

[Fact Finder]

I have mentioned this before but given the lack of traction that has attached to the OnSemi, Infineon and Microchip partnership reveals together with the consistent doubting of the Mercedes Benz partnership I will bring it up again:

Abstract​

There is ample empirical evidence for an asymmetry in the way that adults use positive versus negative information to make sense of their world; specifically, across an array of psychological situations and tasks, adults display a negativity bias, or the propensity to attend to, learn from, and use negative information far more than positive information...

At a higher cognitive level, negative stimuli are hypothesized to carry greater informational value than positive stimuli, and to thus require greater attention and cognitive processing (see

Peeters & Czapinski, 1990). Accordingly, adults spend more time looking at negative than at positive stimuli, perceive negative stimuli to be more complex than positive ones, and form more complex cognitive representations of negative than of positive stimuli (e.g.,

Ducette & Soucar, 1974;

Fiske, 1980;

H. Miller & Bieri, 1965).

At a still more complex level of psychological functioning, the negativity bias has also repeatedly been revealed in adults' judgment and decision-making. When making judgments, people consistently weight the negative aspects of an event or stimulus more heavily than the positive aspects (

Kahneman and Tversky, 1984; see

Peeters & Czapinski, 1990, for a review). This is also true of impression-formation: when given descriptions of a hypothetical person's moral and immoral behaviors, or adjectives describing the person's good and bad traits, subjects process and use the negative more than the positive information in arriving at a final impression of the person, even when the positive and negative information are equally intense (see

Abelson & Kanouse, 1966;

Fiske & Taylor, 1991;

Kanouse & Hanson, 1972; but see

Skowronski & Carlston, 1987). Furthermore, people need less negative trait information to make trait inferences about others (

Aloise, 1993; see also

N. H. Anderson, 1965, and

Czapinski, 1988).

There is also recent neuroscientific evidence for a negativity bias (e.g.,

Ito, Larsen, Smith, & Cacioppo, 1998;

Schupp et al., 2004). For example,

Ito, Larsen, et al. (1998) measured undergraduate students' event-related brain potentials (ERPs) as they showed them neutral pictures (as a kind of context) embedded with occasional positive or negative pictures (targets). The major ERP component of interest was a late positive potential (LPP), which is typically enhanced in response to evaluatively inconsistent targets (e.g., a positive stimulus embedded in a sequence of neutral stimuli) as compared to evaluatively consistent targets (e.g., a positive stimulus embedded in a sequence of positive stimuli;

Cacioppo, Crites, & Gardner, 1996). As expected, Ito, Larsen, et al. found LPP enhancement in response to evaluatively inconsistent targets, both when targets were positive and when they were negative. Importantly, though, they found that the LPPs elicited by the negative pictures were significantly larger in amplitude than the LPPs elicited by the positive pictures despite the fact that both positive and negative pictures were equally probable, equally evaluatively extreme, and equally arousing. Similarly,

Crites, Cacioppo, Gardner, and Berntson's (1995) data, when re-examined by

Cacioppo, Gardner, and Berntson (1999), revealed larger-amplitude LPPs to negative stimuli embedded in a sequence of positive stimuli as compared to the reverse. Furthermore, even when subjects are not asked to explicitly evaluate the valence of stimuli, negative stimuli implicitly receive greater neural processing (as reflected in an enhanced LPP) than do positive stimuli"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3652533/

My opinion only DYOR
Fact Finder

 

[David holland]

So are you then implying that Brainchip's Executive have effectively signed over 50 IP deals hidden in clauses and because nothing material
can be justified at this point in time they are not legally required to lodge documents with the ASX.

I may be totally wrong here, but if the Board have instructed the CEO not to inform the shareholders of a change in business modelling, as
they have done previously, well are they then in fact breaking any disclosures that must be disclosed to the shareholders ?

At a recent delivery, Sean stated that the company hadn't changed their business model, and emphasized that we are first and foremost
an IP Company !

Very happy to be corrected, but I disagree with your logic....Tech.

I hope Sean has hidden the IP's in partnership deals because if he hasn't gone down that line his in trouble with the lack of IP signings

 

[Pom down under]

I hope Sean has hidden the IP's in partnership deals because if he hasn't gone down that line his in trouble with the lack of IP signings

 

[wilzy123]

I hope Sean has hidden the IP's in partnership deals because if he hasn't gone down that line his in trouble with the lack of IP signings

GREAT POST DH!

 

[Fact Finder]

Hi Dio,

I agree with your views...my previous post was slightly sarcastic, in that a few shareholders have contacted me, including German posters
who all seem to think that the business model has changed somehow, and Partnerships are the new currency, while they are extremely
important for us to get established and grow, they are not a replacement for IP Licenses, now or ever.

As many shareholders are hanging out for IP announcements, reflecting license fee revenue they assume that Partnerships are now the
default go to, brought on by anxiety or fear that no revenue indicates the demise of our company.

We have never, ever been in such a strong position, I personally see no reason whatsoever for us not to succeed moving forward,
I can visualize us at the bottom part of the hockey stick heading toward the curve upwards over the next 10 months and accelerating
throughout 2025 and beyond.

Cheers....Chris (Tech)

At the 2022 AGM during question time a shareholder raised a question and comment regarding whether Brainchip had a flexible pricing policy as this might facilitate getting customers to sign on the dotted line. Both the Chair and the CEO answered in the affirmative that they did have a flexible approach to how they priced the technology to each individual customer.

I have mentioned an Australian company called Nanosonics as an example of a company which has a flexible pricing policy based on a number of different models. The most instructive of how a flexible pricing model can be created to sell product is the model they created with the UK's National Health. To understand how inventive sellers can be to get a sale across the line it is worthwhile following up.

Brainchip is an IP company however it has never tied itself to how it will charge out the IP to any or all customers in fact the former CEO Mr. Dinardo made a strong point that Brainchip would not be disclosing publicly how much it would be charging to maintain flexibility with its customer base. He did suggest that larger customer orders could see a price reduction.

Without changing the business model in anyway Brainchip could agree to amortise the IP licence fee over the life of the product so that the royalty paid would consist of the amount of the royalty plus an amount for the IP licence.

Brainchip makes the point when they are questioned about why such and such a partnership was not announced on the ASX that under the Continous Disclosure Rules unless they can calculate a dollar amount they are not entitled to announce such matters on the ASX.

So lets take Tata Elxsi as an example. Brainchip have released that they have partnered with Tata Elxsi to drive adoption of AKIDA technology in medical and industrial applications.

Brainchip could have contracted with Tata Elxsi on the basis that they will supply the IP and charge 'x' amount royalty and a proportion of the IP licence fee per product produced and sold.

This type of deal would be one which Brainchip would claim does not meet ASX requirements because they do not have any idea how many sales will be made and therefore cannot calculate what the value of the contract with Tata Elxsi is at this point.

When the first sale is made by Tata Elxsi even then Brainchip may not under the terms of the agreement know about the sale until Tata Elxsi accounts to them a sum of money at which point Brainchip would be entitled to then audit to ensure they have not been under or over paid.

These funds being for past events could lead to an announcement about the amount received if it is considered material in nature other wise it could just as we have been told appear in the 4C without attribution.

But ask yourself this question how can Tata Elxsi or any other partner like Microchip suggest they are going to be driving the adoption of AKIDA technology by their customers in the absence of knowledge as to what the product they are selling will cost.

It is ludicrous in the extreme to think that Tata Elxsi will do all the work to design the product and take the customers order without having Brainchip locked in to an agreed price. There is no doubt in my mind that a contract has been signed by Tata Elxsi agreeing terms with Brainchip. It cannot be otherwise.

I do not know the terms of that contract but as I suggest above it could involve amortising the IP licence fee. It could require a million units be sold before the IP licence fee becomes payable and its quantum could be then based upon the value of the future sale book at that time. Brainchip remains an IP company throughout just the terms of payment remain flexible to be agreed by the parties.

My opinion only DYOR
Fact Finder

 

[David holland]

GREAT POST DH!

View attachment 55888

I don't want to see your mum

 

[wilzy123]

I don't want to see your mum

I thought you were my mum

 

[DingoBorat]

I have mentioned this before but given the lack of traction that has attached to the OnSemi, Infineon and Microchip partnership reveals together with the consistent doubting of the Mercedes Benz partnership I will bring it up again:

Abstract​

There is ample empirical evidence for an asymmetry in the way that adults use positive versus negative information to make sense of their world; specifically, across an array of psychological situations and tasks, adults display a negativity bias, or the propensity to attend to, learn from, and use negative information far more than positive information...

At a higher cognitive level, negative stimuli are hypothesized to carry greater informational value than positive stimuli, and to thus require greater attention and cognitive processing (see

Peeters & Czapinski, 1990). Accordingly, adults spend more time looking at negative than at positive stimuli, perceive negative stimuli to be more complex than positive ones, and form more complex cognitive representations of negative than of positive stimuli (e.g.,

Ducette & Soucar, 1974;

Fiske, 1980;

H. Miller & Bieri, 1965).

At a still more complex level of psychological functioning, the negativity bias has also repeatedly been revealed in adults' judgment and decision-making. When making judgments, people consistently weight the negative aspects of an event or stimulus more heavily than the positive aspects (

Kahneman and Tversky, 1984; see

Peeters & Czapinski, 1990, for a review). This is also true of impression-formation: when given descriptions of a hypothetical person's moral and immoral behaviors, or adjectives describing the person's good and bad traits, subjects process and use the negative more than the positive information in arriving at a final impression of the person, even when the positive and negative information are equally intense (see

Abelson & Kanouse, 1966;

Fiske & Taylor, 1991;

Kanouse & Hanson, 1972; but see

Skowronski & Carlston, 1987). Furthermore, people need less negative trait information to make trait inferences about others (

Aloise, 1993; see also

N. H. Anderson, 1965, and

Czapinski, 1988).

There is also recent neuroscientific evidence for a negativity bias (e.g.,

Ito, Larsen, Smith, & Cacioppo, 1998;

Schupp et al., 2004). For example,

Ito, Larsen, et al. (1998) measured undergraduate students' event-related brain potentials (ERPs) as they showed them neutral pictures (as a kind of context) embedded with occasional positive or negative pictures (targets). The major ERP component of interest was a late positive potential (LPP), which is typically enhanced in response to evaluatively inconsistent targets (e.g., a positive stimulus embedded in a sequence of neutral stimuli) as compared to evaluatively consistent targets (e.g., a positive stimulus embedded in a sequence of positive stimuli;

Cacioppo, Crites, & Gardner, 1996). As expected, Ito, Larsen, et al. found LPP enhancement in response to evaluatively inconsistent targets, both when targets were positive and when they were negative. Importantly, though, they found that the LPPs elicited by the negative pictures were significantly larger in amplitude than the LPPs elicited by the positive pictures despite the fact that both positive and negative pictures were equally probable, equally evaluatively extreme, and equally arousing. Similarly,

Crites, Cacioppo, Gardner, and Berntson's (1995) data, when re-examined by

Cacioppo, Gardner, and Berntson (1999), revealed larger-amplitude LPPs to negative stimuli embedded in a sequence of positive stimuli as compared to the reverse. Furthermore, even when subjects are not asked to explicitly evaluate the valence of stimuli, negative stimuli implicitly receive greater neural processing (as reflected in an enhanced LPP) than do positive stimuli"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3652533/

My opinion only DYOR
Fact Finder

"I have mentioned this before but given the lack of traction that has attached to the OnSemi, Infineon and Microchip partnership reveals together with the consistent doubting of the Mercedes Benz partnership I will bring it up again"

It's evident that the BrainChip share price, won't gain traction on partnerships (unless it was with a Company like NVIDIA).

Also, the pressure of the LDA selling and general manipulation, is still outweighing genuine buying.


BrainChip, is not on people's radars anymore, at least not like it was, when it was often the most discussed stock on HC, with often the highest rated posts as well (often by you ).

I hate HC, but being here, does insulate us from a great deal of exposure, from other investors/speculators and BrainChip, would have never soared to the heights it did, without that medium, in my opinion.

It was a bit of a double edged sword.

In escaping from the negative part of that forum, we lost the benefit of wider exposure.
Which was fine, when we were naturally attracting strong attention.

Now, especially with how much has changed in the World, much of what is happening with BrainChip, is lost in the noise of everything else.

I think BrainChip and AKIDA, are hugely undervalued and there is much that will be caught up, with the right conditions.


I don't think anyone, is doubting the Mercedes partnership (or any others) unless they are ignorant of facts, but it is also a fact, that Future revenue from them, is not yet guaranteed.

I consider myself to be a positive thinking pessimistic optimist, with realist overtones and am confident of BrainChip's success, but for the share price to reflect this Future success, we need a "wake up" call, for the World.

I believe BrainChip, won't achieve a true reflection of its value, without World Wide interest, in our Company.

We got a taste of that, with the original Mercedes reveal.
Next time, it will be a full course meal in my opinion..

 

[Fact Finder]

"I have mentioned this before but given the lack of traction that has attached to the OnSemi, Infineon and Microchip partnership reveals together with the consistent doubting of the Mercedes Benz partnership I will bring it up again"

It's evident that the BrainChip share price, won't gain traction on partnerships (unless it was with a Company like NVIDIA).

Also, the pressure of the LDA selling and general manipulation, is still outweighing genuine buying.


BrainChip, is not on people's radars anymore, at least not like it was, when it was often the most discussed stock on HC, with often the highest rated posts as well (often by you ).

I hate HC, but being here, does insulate us from a great deal of exposure, from other investors/speculators and BrainChip, would have never soared to the heights it did, without that medium, in my opinion.

It was a bit of a double edged sword.

In escaping from the negative part of that forum, we lost the benefit of wider exposure.
Which was fine, when we were naturally attracting strong attention.

Now, especially with how much has changed in the World, much of what is happening with BrainChip, is lost in the noise of everything else.

I think BrainChip and AKIDA, are hugely undervalued and there is much that will be caught up, with the right conditions.


I don't think anyone, is doubting the Mercedes partnership (or any others) unless they are ignorant of facts, but it is also a fact, that Future revenue from them, is not yet guaranteed.

I consider myself to be a positive thinking pessimistic optimist, with realist overtones and am confident of BrainChip's success, but for the share price to reflect this Future success, we need a "wake up" call, for the World.

I believe BrainChip, won't achieve a true reflection of its value, without World Wide interest, in our Company.

We got a taste of that, with the original Mercedes reveal.
Next time, it will be a full course meal in my opinion..

Hi DB
I read HC to gauge sentiment but in saying that reading can be as shallow as reading the names of those who have posted.

That often is sufficient but I have observed notwithstanding a continuing trend to constantly cast doubt over the Mercedes Benz partnership.

In my mind only a fool would discount that AKIDA technology will be used in keyword spotting.

Mercedes Benz will have to explain why something five to ten times better than competitors products was abandoned.

I personally see that as beyond speculation given all the other partner affirmations of AKIDA’s science fiction attributes.

The next step is a piece of string about which I have insufficient data.

This yet to be cut piece of string is what does “when deployed at scale” actually involve but this is an entirely separate issue to keyword spotting.

My opinion only DYOR
Fact Finder

 

[Space Cadet]

Hi Frangipani,

The connexion with Prof Sukhatme is very promising. A tie in with USC would be a real feather in BRN's cap. Let's hope that has been followed up.

On the other hand, it looks like Prof Yang has probably been deeply involved in AFRL's dabbling with ReRAM/MemRistor/compute-in-memory. I can see a role for ReRAM as RadHard storage/backup for mission-critical data and software, but I guess they are still working on manufacturing repeatability for analog compute-in-memory.

Hi Dodgy,

Radhard memory brings me to Numem. Wonder what happened with their phase 1 using Akida. Contract end date 25/01/23. So 12 months on. I have tried today, to get on their website and can't so either my phone or they haven't paid their bills. They put out new products a few month's ago that I wanted to check but can't get on their site. They also completed an A Funding round so should still be a going concern.

SC

 

[Tothemoon24]

Great read on all things ARM

The rise of Arm in computing: More than just mobile?

The landscape of Arm-based computing unfolds, promising continued innovation and a transformative future.

www.xda-developers.com

 

[DingoBorat]

Hi Dodgy,

Radhard memory brings me to Numem. Wonder what happened with their phase 1 using Akida. Contract end date 25/01/23. So 12 months on. I have tried today, to get on their website and can't so either my phone or they haven't paid their bills. They put out new products a few month's ago that I wanted to check but can't get on their site. They also completed an A Funding round so should still be a going concern.

SC

Tried two different browsers on my phone and got this on both.

 

[Pom down under]

"I have mentioned this before but given the lack of traction that has attached to the OnSemi, Infineon and Microchip partnership reveals together with the consistent doubting of the Mercedes Benz partnership I will bring it up again"

It's evident that the BrainChip share price, won't gain traction on partnerships (unless it was with a Company like NVIDIA).

Also, the pressure of the LDA selling and general manipulation, is still outweighing genuine buying.


BrainChip, is not on people's radars anymore, at least not like it was, when it was often the most discussed stock on HC, with often the highest rated posts as well (often by you ).

I hate HC, but being here, does insulate us from a great deal of exposure, from other investors/speculators and BrainChip, would have never soared to the heights it did, without that medium, in my opinion.

It was a bit of a double edged sword.

In escaping from the negative part of that forum, we lost the benefit of wider exposure.
Which was fine, when we were naturally attracting strong attention.

Now, especially with how much has changed in the World, much of what is happening with BrainChip, is lost in the noise of everything else.

I think BrainChip and AKIDA, are hugely undervalued and there is much that will be caught up, with the right conditions.


I don't think anyone, is doubting the Mercedes partnership (or any others) unless they are ignorant of facts, but it is also a fact, that Future revenue from them, is not yet guaranteed.

I consider myself to be a positive thinking pessimistic optimist, with realist overtones and am confident of BrainChip's success, but for the share price to reflect this Future success, we need a "wake up" call, for the World.

I believe BrainChip, won't achieve a true reflection of its value, without World Wide interest, in our Company.

We got a taste of that, with the original Mercedes reveal.
Next time, it will be a full course meal in my opinion..

I pining my hopes on an announcement from the Nanose patent which is due approval any day now and this will shock the world before anything else does. Just imagine a device that can sniff out many diseases in seconds with minimal training for the user and if you’ve been keeping up with nanose medical their data base of diseases and clinical trials are getting bigger by the day.

Taking a rest now after writing so much.

 

[Diogenese]

Tried two different browsers on my phone and got this on both.

View attachment 55899

Cyber attack?

 

[Space Cadet]

Tried two different browsers on my phone and got this on both.

View attachment 55899

Yeah me too

SC

 

[DingoBorat]

I pining my hopes on an announcement from the Nanose patent which is due approval any day now and this will shock the world before anything else does. Just imagine a device that can sniff out many diseases in seconds with minimal training for the user and if you’ve been keeping up with nanose medical their data base of diseases and clinical trials are getting bigger by the day.

Taking a rest now after writing so much.

View attachment 55907

That might stop them snoring, I think we need something more mainstream, to really wake them up...

Not sure what though..

 

[rgupta]

N

At the 2022 AGM during question time a shareholder raised a question and comment regarding whether Brainchip had a flexible pricing policy as this might facilitate getting customers to sign on the dotted line. Both the Chair and the CEO answered in the affirmative that they did have a flexible approach to how they priced the technology to each individual customer.

I have mentioned an Australian company called Nanosonics as an example of a company which has a flexible pricing policy based on a number of different models. The most instructive of how a flexible pricing model can be created to sell product is the model they created with the UK's National Health. To understand how inventive sellers can be to get a sale across the line it is worthwhile following up.

Brainchip is an IP company however it has never tied itself to how it will charge out the IP to any or all customers in fact the former CEO Mr. Dinardo made a strong point that Brainchip would not be disclosing publicly how much it would be charging to maintain flexibility with its customer base. He did suggest that larger customer orders could see a price reduction.

Without changing the business model in anyway Brainchip could agree to amortise the IP licence fee over the life of the product so that the royalty paid would consist of the amount of the royalty plus an amount for the IP licence.

Brainchip makes the point when they are questioned about why such and such a partnership was not announced on the ASX that under the Continous Disclosure Rules unless they can calculate a dollar amount they are not entitled to announce such matters on the ASX.

So lets take Tata Elxsi as an example. Brainchip have released that they have partnered with Tata Elxsi to drive adoption of AKIDA technology in medical and industrial applications.

Brainchip could have contracted with Tata Elxsi on the basis that they will supply the IP and charge 'x' amount royalty and a proportion of the IP licence fee per product produced and sold.

This type of deal would be one which Brainchip would claim does not meet ASX requirements because they do not have any idea how many sales will be made and therefore cannot calculate what the value of the contract with Tata Elxsi is at this point.

When the first sale is made by Tata Elxsi even then Brainchip may not under the terms of the agreement know about the sale until Tata Elxsi accounts to them a sum of money at which point Brainchip would be entitled to then audit to ensure they have not been under or over paid.

These funds being for past events could lead to an announcement about the amount received if it is considered material in nature other wise it could just as we have been told appear in the 4C without attribution.

But ask yourself this question how can Tata Elxsi or any other partner like Microchip suggest they are going to be driving the adoption of AKIDA technology by their customers in the absence of knowledge as to what the product they are selling will cost.

It is ludicrous in the extreme to think that Tata Elxsi will do all the work to design the product and take the customers order without having Brainchip locked in to an agreed price. There is no doubt in my mind that a contract has been signed by Tata Elxsi agreeing terms with Brainchip. It cannot be otherwise.

I do not know the terms of that contract but as I suggest above it could involve amortising the IP licence fee. It could require a million units be sold before the IP licence fee becomes payable and its quantum could be then based upon the value of the future sale book at that time. Brainchip remains an IP company throughout just the terms of payment remain flexible to be agreed by the parties.

My opinion only DYOR
Fact Finder

Brainchip is an IP provider and secrecy of relationships and contract values is very important especially when you are going through development phase.
I still the asx asking questions about value of ip contract receipts was a big issue which hinders company's long term goals.
So that was the time company changed policy and postponed the IP signing until a product ready stage is not coming. So that is why we can see a lot of partners and no IP sale.
We all know the last IP was signed more than 3 years old but still there is no commercial product. So why company should target signing new IPs and then put product development on back burner.
On the other hand it will be a good policy to help partners getting product ready and develop companies ecosystem and gain market confidence and partners' support.
So signing IPs could had delayed the ecosystem development by at least 2-3 years. Signing 4-5 new IPs can help SP but derail company's long term vision.
So I strongly believe partnership developments is helping us getting to our ultimate goal.
My last point is, brainchip is working with other undisclosed companies already under NDAs. So they know better about market and how to grow.
So I will take partners as a good development and another step to our overall goal.

 

[Quatrojos]

I hope Sean has hidden the IP's in partnership deals because if he hasn't gone down that line his in trouble with the lack of IP signings

He's been on a lot of dates since coming on the market. Can't wait til he gets past first base!

 

[Pom down under]

If you ever wondered what happened to the noisy gut project undertaken by Western Australia university a while back and if Akida was used in anyway. Then the answer is no Akida wasn’t used unless I’m wrong.

Development of a bowel sound detector adapted to demonstrate the effect of food intake - PMC

Bowel sounds (BS) carry useful information about gastrointestinal condition and feeding status. Interest in computerized bowel sound-based analysis has grown recently and techniques have evolved rapidly. An important first step for these analyses is ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov