IP

Shapen361

I think Playstation will buy them before they go bankrupt (Microsoft will probably get blocked on antitrust). The IP is very valuable but mismanaged.

Albertpm95

Are you entirely sure they are making money with big IPs? My reasons to not buy (based on vibes, not data, not checked) - Insane amount of employees - Destroyed Assassin's Creed IP by copy-pasting nearly the same game for 15y - Other IP's are the same copy-pasted Assassin's with only a coat of paint - They had an insanely big IP like Star Wars and their game made 0 noise. - They had another big IP like Avatar and also made 0 noise. - They made a good game (Last prince of persia) for a niche public and felted the team behind it - They made a pirate game and wasted a very good opportunity (I heard they made the game in Singapore so maybe it wasn't that expensive) - Their directives have 0 interest in games as an art and they think that anything can be solved if you do more with lower quality - They wanted to sell their IP's to another newly created company to avoid the issues the current Ubisoft has or something like that was heavily rumoured. I don't think they are going to make a good game anytime soon and I think it's even unlikely they win customer trust back

rickny0

Google owns the IP

dweaver987

No. The IP is owned by the government and is licensed to US companies. The licensing fees and royalties go back to the government and fund additional research. Final stages of the development of the technology is usually performed in a CRADA - Cooperative Research and Development Agreement. Multiple US companies can have CRADAs for the same technology developed by the government. A lot of solar energy technology was originally developed in National Labs. But the government isn’t allowed to compete with commercial businesses. CRADAS were used to help companies learn how to use the technology to build products that could actually be sold and used. But any one company couldn’t afford to make that initial R&D investment that might take a decade to become viable.

yourfriendlyelitisdd

Tesla's team architected the full Al inference system around Samsung IP, optimizing for their neural nets. It's not an off-the-shelf Exynos like in a Galaxy phone, it's bespoke silicon for FSD, with Tesla's proprietary NPU and accelerators. It's like saying NVIDIA doesn't make real GPUs because they license Arm cores and fab at TSMC instead of building chips in their garage.

reflectedstars

How much of potential TPU revenue would go to GOOGL vs AVGO? Is Broadcom only involved in design consultancy? Does Google own the IP and design of their TPUs?

xploeris

So, privatizing a bunch of IP that was paid for with public money?

ElectronicFinish

Probably lots of IP will be coming from Broadcom. Broadcom will sell lots of packaging, networking, etc. So logically this is more bullish for Broadcom than for Google.

jcodes57

What are their products? What does their backlog look like? What about future deals? What is their IP? If you’re going to claim 100x try to finish the DD

crunchsoop

$rym is Canadian and Nasdaq listed. Gtbif sold the IP of their brands to RYM and licensed it back to themselves. Rym can now export out of Canada internationally

Charming_Squirrel_13

I think it's both a bubble and that generative AI is here to stay. I'm of the viewpoint that it will become commoditized and extremely difficult for many AI companies to profit off of in the way the market is projecting. Hardware companies like Nvidia might maintain these margins for a while, but a shocking number of these software firms may realize that they don't have any effective moats. The only AI names I own are NVDA, Google and AMD and they all have hardware IP that serves as a strong moat.

ProbsNotManBearPig

There is not a single chip on the planet with any physical component that is 3nm. Those node names are pure marketing. Theres not anything smaller than ~20nm on the most advanced chips today. Source - me. I work in the semiconductor industry and look at scanning electron microscope images of these every day. Tesla designed the SoC here, which is not the PCB. It’s a monolithic chip combining multiple sub systems into one chip. They did do some actual chip integration design here. Just not what you think of as core IP of a cpu or gpu. Their SoC design is not advanced at all though and ultimately Elmo is trying to milk it on the marketing front. So you’re right anyways.

Suitable_Air_2686

> We expect to build chips at higher volumes ultimately than all other AI chips combined. Read that sentence again, as I’m not kidding. Tesla’s “AI chips” in their cars were simple called hardware 3 then last year you get in on the hype they changed the name to AI4. In fact this AI chip was reported to have sub par low quality parts as per the teardown done by independent engineers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryE7nENHh4I > HW4:A lot less improvement than many hoped for.Still Samsung Exynos-IP based. Bumped CPU cores from 12 to 20 (5 clusters of 4 cores each), maxing at 2.35GHz, idle at 1.37GHz Number of TRIP cores increased from 2 to 3, 2.2GHz max freq All x2 since there are two SoCs per board > otherwise no changes there - same 256G NVMe and 16G RAM, same AMD CPU and GPU. https://electrek.co/2023/02/15/tesla-self-driving-hw4-computer-leaks-teardown/ ##They are not even making their own CPU or GPU and Elmo claims they are gonna do mass production of AI chips🤡

DeliciousAges

"(Also I don't think Tencent is enough to save them)" Tencent just invested over 1.1 billion EUR into Ubisoft at the end of last week: Ubisoft is very pleased to announce the completion of the strategic investment of Tencent in the entity Ubisoft Nova SAS (referred to individually as “Vantage Studios”), built around the Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry, and Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six franchises, thus securing a €1.16 billion cash investment from Tencent (the “Investment”). The Investment values Vantage Studios1 at a pre-money enterprise value of €3.8 billion and marks a significant milestone in Ubisoft’s transformation, strengthening its balance sheet, crystallizing the value of its world-class IP, and positioning its flagship franchises for long-term growth. See here: [https://staticctf.ubisoft.com/8aefmxkxpxwl/75tVaQDaf9A5X8N97roq4K/5fc21239bb19bfc7ee1a8599a216e1fc/Closing\_press\_release\_21.11.25\_EN.pdf](https://staticctf.ubisoft.com/8aefmxkxpxwl/75tVaQDaf9A5X8N97roq4K/5fc21239bb19bfc7ee1a8599a216e1fc/Closing_press_release_21.11.25_EN.pdf) This basically cuts Ubisoft debt to near zero. I don't see any issues for Ubisoft now that the JV deal with Tencent is done.

EvolvingDior

Except if it is posting from a known datacenter IP block.

CrimsonBrit

As in Netflix bidding for Warner Brothers and then potentially acquiring HBO, the DC Universe IP, and the rights to things like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings? Losing the bid wouldn’t change my thesis, but I think winning the bid would be bullish in potentially consolidating subscriptions in households and becoming a default option for most consumers (in the US). I think movie theaters and screenings is a slowly dying business and wouldn’t care much for that portion of the bid value. Wait and see for the time being, but Netflix’s strength is original content in my eyes.

polynesiantrapezius

I know that Nvidia and Snowflake operate in high-margin segments. The comparison with Nebius is not one-to-one. The goal was to use analogies to help understand their long term vision. Neoclouds are indeed capital-intensive by design because they own and operate physical infrastructure. Their margins will always be structurally lower than pure software or IP businesses unless they reach very large scale, but I believe Nebius has all the tools to not become commoditized down the road and to become the reference in overall AI Cloud services. Yes, they are currently spending heavily in acquiring capacity and building infrastructure, but that is because of the current market dynamics. The end goal is not to become a REIT/pure infrastructure play, it's about offering the best AI Cloud services stack for enterprise/startups. Another thing here is that I don't see demand slowing down anytime soon. I am witnessing the exponentially fast adoption of AI at the enterprise level and all its applications. A year and a half ago people were barely using AI at work, and now any company and their mother ensures there's widespread adoption of AI internally with different applications that generate real value for their companies. Nebius long term play is more towards the enterprise/startups market than for hyperscalers. So we shouldn't view Nebius as a pure compute - bare metals data center long term play. They are already more than that, but the end goal is about their software stack. I am not saying Nebius is the new Nvidia and that it will be worth multiple trillions. I was simply making analogies on the early structural decisions that allowed both Nvidia and Snowflake to become dominant and win against bigger players in their respective industry.

NormalAddition8943

the OS let's software interface with hardware abstractions (3D, OpenGL, Vulkan, colour space, fonts, locale, etc) and other input-output APIs (printing, mouse, keyboard, screen, TCP/IP, etc). The OS needs drivers to keep up-to-date with hardware and be secure to prevent exploits. Windows has good drivers for vendor supported-generation hardware, where as Linux has hardware support goes much further back into older generation hardware. Linux also generally doesn't add much extra bloat that gets in your way. Where as Apple control their hardware entirely, so has a very limited scope of what they support; however their OS is weighted down with a lot more bloat-ware than Linux.

mayorolivia

It’s not the same at all. Nvidia and Snowflake are high margin businesses. Nvidia launched as a fabless company to keep capex down and focus on IP. Today, they generate almost 75% gross margins. The viability of Nebius and the neocloud businesses is unproven. They have to invest enormous sums on hardware, energy, etc to be able to attract customers. Margins on these contracts are razor thin. None of the neoclouds are profitable and it’s unknown when they will become so. To fuel spending, they must dilute shareholders constantly and raise debt. Despite the discourse on Reddit and Twitter, Nebius also has a lot of debt and diluting shareholders constantly by up to 10% (like a few weeks ago) is necessary for survival. The question you need to ask is what sort of margins can Nebius eventually make? The reason cloud businesses are so valued by Wall Street is their fat margins. I hold Nebius because I’m bullish on compute demand but one needs to understand this business model is extremely risky. I promise you all the neoclouds will drop 50%+ when AI spending eventually slows down.

BowlCutKing

Do you have a background in engineering? A lack of IT and engineering knowledge is a problem Jensen faces in trying to explain to paranoid chinese regulators why their fears are nonsense. Geolocation requires an unprotected internet connection if using IP/route data or an easily detected GPS receiver. Kill switches and backdoors also require an unprotected internet connection. What are your network security team even doing if allowing such things to touch vital hardware, air gaps should be mandatory.

OddPea7322

Netflix isn’t all that similar though because they (and other steaming platforms) can create original IP and own it, and then you have to subscribe to their service if you want to watch that show or movie. Like, if you want to watch Stranger Things you need Netflix. And so even if a “better” show comes out by ratings or critic reviews, you can’t just switch from Netflix to Hulu, because you’re probably engrossed in Stranger Things. LLMs more or less aren’t differentiated in that way. I used Claude until Gemini was better at coding and switched immediately.

Woopig170

Google was never going to launch LLMs as a consumer product because they have no true utility😂 Google was shocked that Chatgpt was released in such a poor state bc they wouldn’t ever consider releasing such a shitty product. They were forced to spit out gemini in response to the rise of ChatGPT. Google does not want to be associated with bad and shitty tech, but bc OpenAi released Chatgpt, they had to compete. That’s not even accounting for the lawsuit and judgement risk of stealing all of the IP that both companies did to create their models. Fundamentally, the tech was not ready- Google was shocked that some small startup was confidently promising these crazy capabilities with such a basic technology that had not been structurally defined, was objectively untrustworthy, and clearly nowhere near ready to be in the hands of consumers. This is a circus🤡

dub_soda

I’m actually more concerned that people are ok with this shit. Like selling F35s to a serial killer whose family crashes planes into our cities. What happened to American national security and IP

Mi11ionaireman

Don't forget Bugs Bunny and all of Hanna-Barbara. Their animation studio, IP and Library could be the most beneficial for appealing to kids and competing with Disney Plus.

callmecrude

WB owns so much IP. Harry Potter and DC alone would give them the huge pillars of endless content like what Disney is doing with Marvel and Star Wars. Massive shows like Game of Thrones, The Last of Us, etc would definitely draw people in. TNT sports means getting the rights to a ton of sports streaming. I’d honestly love to see Netflix acquire them as they’re one of the few companies who actually have enough cash to keep investing in high quality content

BukkakeKing69

Netflix could try actually developing and sticking to some internal IP's. It feels like they were cancelling everything left or right a couple years ago and now they've pushed themselves into the true crime and reality slop platform nobody wants to stay subscribed long term. I know the writers strike happened and all that but this year has been quite the drought.

RedBrowning

You obviously have not been paying attention to the details of NVIDIA's technology NVIDIA licenses ARM for all its SoCs. This is not like the Alter a acquisition because NVIDIA is already using and dependent on ARMs IP. ARM CPUs are used in virtually all cell phones and mobile devices. Acquiring ARM would've enabled NVIDIA to easily enter that market and would've greatly decreased NVIDIAs SoC risk due to their dependence on ARM. It would also have enabled NVIDIA to compete with AMD and Intel in the CPU market.

ImposterJavaDev

Qwen Coder by Alibaba is currently the best in programming related tasks in my experience. But I don't trust it with sensitive data or IP at all.

Scared_Brilliant6410

I’ve been starting to look at pharma. I picked up Pfizer and might get some NVO. Pfizer isn’t going anywhere and has a solid dividend. They’ve been acquiring a lot of IP recently and will be bringing a new weight loss drugs to market after their recent acquisition.

Gorusz

The thing is, when they go too expensive, people will just use open source models and run it on their own hardware. It is already starting to pivot in that direction for IP-sensitive stuff.

thalassamikra

Given all the conversations around OpenAI's finances and audit, I would love to see them actually file an S1 for their IPO. There's been some chatter that they go the SPAC ways because less scrutiny LOL. I'm guessing if OpenAI goes down the most exposed would be CRWV, NBIS, ORCL, NVDA and MSFT to an extent (but they get to pick up the IP so all good).

glwillia

discourse on the internet was better back when usenet was where discussions happened and you had to know what a TCP/IP address was to connect.

Ready_Scratch_1902

lets be real. nvda says they have measures in place to protect IP from going to china. my maltipoo is on the ground laughing his ass off

dorkstar1

A lot of folks (particularly in Western countries) criticize China for labor practices, IP theft, government policies, environmental issues, or geopolitical stuff… while their entire life runs on products made in China: iPhone, laptop, clothes, TV, furniture, even the device they’re typing the complaint on.

littlelowcougar

Cisco didn’t own the TCP/IP stack or Berkeley socket interface.

OrangeTheFruit4200

Valuation & liquidity bubble imo. Not an IP, demand or tech bubble.

tryexceptifnot1try

Oracle can only win this deal if OpenAI achieves AGI first and has long enough to build a moat around itself before the competitors catch it. This whole year has been about Gemini and Claude catching them in effectiveness while Chinese competitors have cut costs by 80% post DeepSeek.  Then you look at what they can do with that infrastructure if OpenAI fails. They need everyone to still need all those Nvidia GPUs to keep the price up on their collateral. Gemini 3 Pro was trained using TPUs, China can't use them by law, and Amazon is all in on Trainium chips doing what TPUs did for Google. They can't charge a premium for their compute because they are the Dacia Sandero of cloud providers and no one chooses them over AWS, Azure, or GCP without step discounts AND regarded leadership.  There's more than that if you look closer. It never should have popped on that news in the first place. They've already taken on a shit load of debt to meet the build requirements without any obvious way that OpenAI can pay for it. Ellison's patent trolling ways can't even force them to pay up if they fail since they don't have shit and MSFT owns all the key IP. This only works if GPT-6 drops in the next 6 months as actual Skynet. The causality here is wall street pulled it's head out of its ass and realized Oracle made a dumb fucking bet, hence being down so much from the ATH. TLDR: This stock sucks dick, never should've popped in the first place, and the price reflects the market realizing this after coming down from a multi-quarter coke bender.

OpeDefinitely

A "distilled" model is a model that is trained on another model. They have been turning out great, and require only a fraction of the compute power to train. All these early model trainers will turn out to be huge suckers. Their super expensive training will end up benefiting companies that have much less overhead. I imagine that western "Big AI" will probably try to make distilled model training illegal, but it doesn't matter given the open nature of the internet. Countries that don't respect Western IP law will just put out their own distilled models and that will be that.

OpeDefinitely

I think they're all too big to fail at this point. Government will be a kingmaker, bailing out some & forcing others to merge. As established big tech companies, I expected Google, Amazon/AWS, and Microsoft to come out owning basically all AI IP.

Amyndris

The real issue is because the FTC was so anti-merger, it caused a lot of acquihires where a big company like Google, Microsoft or Meta would just basically license the IP from a company, hire all of their senior staff and let the rest of the company die. This really fucked over most of the people at the startup who joined at low pay with the promise of a payout when the company got acquired or IPO'd.

Level-Reference-5035

Netflix is the only one I see joining the ring tbh but even then dunno they've been solid with their own IP.

GeeBee72

NVidia acquired 3DFx in 2000, so he’s correct: the company and IP that first developed the GPU is Nvidia. Sure it’s a little disingenuous to state it so bluntly, but that’s the way acquisition works.

Pleasant_Interaction

> Those companies are little Bambis and Chinese Mining industry is the Godzilla. Those stocks are good when people speculate on them, better cash in while you still can. I think MP already bankrupted twice in the past 20 years and third time ain't got be the charm. I mean it’s either we diversify the supply chain or China annexes Taiwan and cripples our economy and tech industry indefinitely lol. And they’re already putting their plan to do that in motion (these controls are mainly to limit the continued growth of our military and defense industries while they build up theirs) > Plus if I remember correctly MP is using Chinese tech to do some of their refinery and paying hefty royalty fees to the CCP. Govt. is investing in the development and advancement of domestic refineries too. If anything they’ll just do what the CCP does and reverse engineer the IP then stop paying the royalties. The government is already becoming more authoritarian anyway

juiced911

Honestly couldn’t hurt. They have great IP

LE_4500

I was going to say Kodak is still in business! They may be a shell of what they were but they will be around for atleast another 10. They own a lot of IP that gets licensed and are pretty much a chemical company now.

skilliard7

Ubisoft is a French company, which means it is very difficult to fire people. So if anyone bought out the company itself, they would be stuck with an organization with a ton of fixed labor costs, that has been massively underperforming. Who would want to own that? The only real value is in their IP/series. I could definitely see another company buying out their most valuable series, but I don't see the point in buying the whole company.

IfuckAround_UfindOut

You really do that? Or just buy some of their IP for Pennies?

Cow_Man42

Tesla. Turns out alienating your customer base, Infuriating the folks who determine your subsidies, Giving a competing organization all your IP and then giving your demagogue CEO a trilly..........Always been a cult of personality with a stock ticker. I can see it getting destroyed by a market downswing and then being bought up entirely by a Chinese competitor for pennines. But "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."

UpbeatFix7299

Forbes knows what they're doing. It's the only reason anyone pays attention to whoever bought the IP from the mag that was in the waiting room at your dentist's office 20 years ago.

D74248

I learned a lot about investing from QCOM. That IP and smoke mirrors can exist at the same time, for one. We were on a weekend trip when it peaked. My kids, now in their 30s, still talk about the trip where we got room service. Which leads to the second lesson, unrealized gains vs real money! But then the Leap Wireless spin-off did end up paying for a new car, so there was that. Glad that it worked out for you. Employers have a rough time was, in retrospect, also key for me but in a very different industry. But stressful at the time.

qaswexort

MSFT don't care because they have their IP. in fact, they prefer if they fail. NVDA has never cared about anything other than their margins. It's not like an injection of capital from NVDA will cause these businesses to be viable long-term

dominicusbenacus

Recently, I applied a staged filter method. First quantitative filtering, then qualitative. I filtered the biotech universe down to 8 titles. From 300. My very own basket bet. My quantitative filter algo was based on empirical studies on survival factors for biotech companies. In this step, I already filtered down to 30. That can differ but I applied rather conservative thresholds for factors like, size, revenue, cash flow etc. The qualitative was an attempt to assess the management, stages, defensibility of IP, etc. And build KPI. Well, that's 10 stocks now and I hope to see at least two go wild up over the next years. Especially, because after the 4 years of funding winter that naturally filtered out losers.

AltruisticMaybe7799

Their lingerie line Honey Birdette is something like 55-60% of income, BUT they are increasing the IP/licensing side of things for higher margin revenue.

Buy_Ethereum

You know, if they can really use their name and develop some adult services, I think they could have a potential turnaround. I want to say I read about a year ago that they were going to start a cam-site styled service. I wonder what % of their revenue comes from merchandise or royalties involved from licensing merchandising rights. I could be wrong, but I seem to see more playboy merch than I do actually hear about the company. I agree, they have the IP and a legendary name. A solid new adult service has a strong chance of gaining traction.

CommonRemarkable7633

My goodness.... So many Chinese Companies in the coming week but this happened? A White House national security memo cites declassified intelligence alleging Alibaba provides technology and data support to China’s People’s Liberation Army for operations involving US targets. The memo claims Alibaba shared customer data — including IP addresses, WiFi details and payment records — and transferred knowledge of zero-day vulnerabilities to the PLA. Alibaba dismissed the allegations as “complete nonsense.” The document follows President Donald Trump’s recent trade-curbs truce with Xi Jinping. US officials say they are working to counter cyber risks from “untrusted vendors.” Lawmakers have urged actions against Alibaba, citing Chinese laws and military-civil fusion requirements.

eaatest

Hide your IP breh

DaStompa

Yeah, when you're in a sustained downtrend you'd expect them to start pulling out stops, bring back deus ex or a new IP or something. Nah, lets keep making dogwater assassins creed games, one might be good some day lol

budoobudoo

You are probably not wrong. Just not right enough. If we're talking pure alpha in the metabolic disease game, let's zoom east to Hong Kong where the real fireworks are popping off. I'm eyeing Innogen-B (02591.HK) and PegBio (02565.HK) as straight-up superior moonshots right now, all laser-focused on the GLP-1 revolution that's exploding in Asia's massive diabetes and obesity market. These aren't diluted plays like UNH's insurance sprawl or HOOD's trading volatility; they're razor-sharp biotechs riding China's 1.4 billion-person wave, with approvals incoming and valuations that make US counterparts look like overpriced lattes. Let me break down why swapping some of that bag for these HK gems could 5x your portfolio by 2028—pure fire, no fluff. First off, the macro setup in Hong Kong biotech is straight dominance mode. While the US Nasdaq biotech index is grinding up a measly 20% this year, Hong Kong's Hang Seng Biotech Index has ripped 80%+, outrunning even AI hype. Why? Beijing's pumping state cash into "Made in China 2025" for pharma independence, with 14 fresh listings already raising over HK$18 billion in 2025—quadrupling last year's haul—and 36 more queued up. Valuations? HK biotechs trade at 8-10x forward sales on average, versus 18x+ for US peers, giving you dirt-cheap entry into 30%+ CAGR growth as Asia's diabetes epidemic (hello, 140 million cases and counting) meets ultra-long-acting GLP-1s that crush Ozempic's dosing hassle. No DOJ probes or Medicare cuts here—just streamlined NMPA nods and export pipelines to Southeast Asia. HIMS is cute with its telehealth subs, but it's a US middleman facing Amazon's boot; these HK plays own the IP and manufacturing in the world's fastest-scaling market. Take Innogen-B: This beast just exploded 296% on debut in August, opening at HK$72 after pricing at HK$18.68, and it's still humming around HK$50-60 with HK$683 million fresh in the tank from an IPO oversubscribed 5,365 times—HK$370 billion in bids from 260k investors, second-hottest in Hong Kong this year. Their crown jewel, Efsubaglutide Alfa (branded Diabegone), is Asia's first homegrown humanized long-acting GLP-1 agonist, already greenlit for type 2 diabetes in China and barreling through late-stage trials for obesity and MASH (that fatty liver goldmine worth $30 billion globally). Early data? 7% weight drop in four weeks, with monthly dosing that laps weekly shots—perfect for compliance in a market where 80% of patients ghost treatments. They're deploying IPO cash for Phase III global pushes, commercial ramps, and CNS add-ons, turning red ink (losses narrowed to HK$175 million last year) into black by mid-2026. Compared to HIMS' 50x P/E bloat and GLP-1 supply glut risks, Innogen's at <5x sales with zero revenue yet—pure asymmetry. Bears whine about Eli Lilly/Novo competition, but Innogen's local pricing edge (half the cost) and China-first moat mean they snag 10-15% market share easy, printing HK$10 billion revenue by 2030. UNH? It's a sleepy dividend cow at 13x earnings, dodging cyber headaches but capped at 8-10% growth; Innogen's your uncapped rocket to HK$300/share. Then PegBio seals the deal as the stealth assassin. Listed earlier this year at HK$15.60, raising HK$301 million for a HK$6 billion val, it dipped to HK$10 on open but clawed back to HK$15+ on pipeline heat—up 7% monthly despite broader volatility. Their lead, PB-119, is another long-acting GLP-1 banger for diabetes and obesity, with NMPA acceptance last year and marketing greenlight eyed for Q1 2026. Preclinicals on PB-2301 (GLP-1/GIP dual) and PB-2309 (triple agonist) target NASH and rare endocrines, diversifying beyond HIMS' one-trick pony. R&D burn was HK$280 million in 2022, tapering to HK$76 million YTD as trials wrap, with cash at HK$27 million pre-IPO now beefed for launch and expansions. Losses ticked up slightly to HK$283 million last year on zero revenue, but that's biotech math—post-approval, ARPU from chronic scripts hits HK$500/year per patient in a 500 million obese Asian pool. Versus HOOD's cyclical 70% transaction reliance (hello, 35% revenue crater in '22), PegBio's recurring revenue moat is ironclad, with PEGylation tech for custom peptides adding service upside. Analysts are mum on ratings yet, but the sector tailwind screams Buy; at 4x projected sales, it's a steal next to UNH's regulatory quicksand (DOJ antitrust, 85% loss ratios). PegBio could 4x to HK$60 by 2027 if PB-119 captures 5% China share, while HOOD prays for bull markets. Bottom line, apes: HIMS/HOOD/UNH are fine for balanced bags, but Innogen and PegBio are the asymmetric edges—cheaper entries, explosive China growth (20% GDP healthcare slice by 2030), and GLP-1 purity without US baggage. HK's policy rocket fuel means 50-100% pops on approvals alone, while US names grind through comps and comps. I'm allocating 20% here; dips under HK$45 for Innogen and HK$12 for PegBio are no-brainers. DYOR, markets flip fast, but this is where the smart money's flowing east. Who's jumping in? 🚀🇭🇰 #HKBiotech #GLP1Bets

Unhappy-Exchange-771

Honestly surprised no one came in to just buy up their IP.

Sandvicheater

MSFT sure as hell aint buying this company after all the bullshit they went through with Bethesda. Sony while they have the money they don't have MSFT levels of fuck you money to throw onto this burning and sinking Ubisoft. Nintendo has no interest in western style games strictly focused on their own in house Japanese IP. I mean i could see Tencent buying them out since they seem to buy out any video game company willing sale it self.

og_kbot

I'm stopping by here to say that your analysis is well put--even if you got some downvotes from your original comment. Personally, I'm bearish right now on these neoclouds. For me the following quote, “The end customer is not funding the supply chain. Rather, the supply chain is funding its own buildout, in the hope that more paying customers will eventually arrive …" is a massive concern for long-term investment right now. These LLM token resellers don't appear to have the software development capability in the foreseeable future to create products other than just charging for input/output tokens and relying on their mag7 investements. They have no moat. Minimal IP.

BlooregardQKazoo

The Marvel IP, without Spider-Man, was simply not worth much when they bought it. Disney has GREATLY increased the value of Marvel as an IP.

EternaIRivaI

I'll take the R6 IP 5$

Fantastic-Vehicle880

Lmao they've literally made so much money off both those IPS. They bought Star wars for like 6 billion and have made 100x that in profit from that IP.

0o0o0o0o0o0z

> DIS is just trash The way they have managed to squander and devalue the IP they have, think of Marvel, and Star Wars, is truly amazing...

SouthIsland48

Whats not to understand from my comment? It's horribly run, Iger outside of buying Marvel, has been ridiculous in his capital investments with the fox acquisiton maybe the worst of all time. Disney's entertainment business is dying a slow death. Content is now a commodity and the winners in commodity businesses are the ones with the largest distribution which Google currently owns through Youtube. Meta also has Insa reels, and Tik Tok, and Netflix, just insanely competitive, not even factoring in other "rival" streaming businesses in Amazon, WBD, and Apple. Their sports business is also dying, with big tech now buying up sports rights with Netflix getting into bed with the NFL, Google owning "sunday ticket" and Amazon hosting TNF games. Youtube is also becoming a far better place for sports review content. Their other legacy channels are also irrelevant. Then you get into their parks business, which is their best asset but also a capital intensive one. It also is not without growing competition, specifically what Nintendo is doing with Universal. Mario is millenial/gen z "mickey mouse". So 30 years in the future, when Boomers are all dead, who will give a shit about Mickey Mouse and other Disney IP? And their stock is in the shitter so they dont even have capital levers to pull like the other tech giants do. So all is to say - there is no way in hell am I ever buying disney.

295DVRKSS

Imagine if Disney released their IP as AI assistants.

look

I’m saying Gen AI is not the “mechanical loom” to IP “weaving” that everyone is pretending it is. It’s a loom that can only making low quality, novelty scarves, and the market for those isn’t that big.

Orange_Codex

What just happened to Mersana is why you check biotech companies' patents. That 200% premium on the stock price is pure goodwill (i.e. how much Day One Pharmaceuticals reckoned IP and other intangibles were worth).

Vlmlee

Literally just IP infringement no shame

ElectricLego

In IT infrastructure, I don't see Cisco innovating. They are coasting on old IP in every market segment. Competitors are passing them by left and right. My personal forecast is they go the way of Dell. Get cannibalized, somebody buys the name for pennies to take it private after PE guts it, maybe then it makes a comeback in 15 years.

WhiskeyTigerFoxtrot

EA is seen to carry much less risk and annually provides stable revenue growth, as opposed to Ubisoft showing erratic numbers and even losses recently. EA has strong IP and brand awareness that is well diversified across shooters, F2P, sports, strategy, and live service. Ubisoft also has some of that but lacks the historical brand diversity. The employee count you mentioned is also seen as a negative rather than a positive. Ubisoft is notoriously bloated in terms of headcount, which investors see as an impediment to predictable revenue and growth.

SwimmingPatience5083

Why not compare their financials? Instead of speculating on their respective IP’s

Whatdosheepdreamof

If you have 2 identical generic models and seek to specialise further, provide the same additional training data, logic dictates that they would come up with the same or similar solutions. Logic cannot be IP. AGI will eventually skirt around IP with enough variations that the effect is the same, but the design is different enough to not be violating it. This assumes that IP will be respected, and seeing as how companies training data doesn't bother with that, i can't see why you'd apply different logic after that point. Most definitely China won't give a shit, regardless this tech will become generic.

Orange_Codex

I remember them from June when their revolutionary aspirin was due to come out. It wasn't revolutionary. They might get bought by someone who wants the IP, but after underwhelming commercialisation are unlikely to get fair value - much less goodwill.

TroubledAcorn

It obviously is going to hurt short term. I will admit I have never been good at timing the market. I’m not telling anyone to buy, but if someone wants to do the research this dramatic price drop over negative sentiment could lead to a good buying opportunity. It started as a beverage company, but the IP/brand play changed the company. There is a real path forward here that could be lucrative. My investment will be fine long term as long as management doesn’t screw us, or we lose the royalty. I will be the first to admit that without the royalty we are most likely cooked. Yes I’m down and its okay, if it was really over I just would have sold my shares. I wish I had bought at these prices, but I don’t have a crystal ball.

landspeed

Can't post screenshots here without hosting - go to stock titan and look up their PR saying back to April and before. Just the ones I've seen, they've won lawsuits against Kroger, Walgreens, Cisco, Broadcom and another I'm forgetting. They have filed lawsuits against numerous other big retailers as well. Last week they won the Cisco lawsuit. Today they won the Broadcom lawsuit. These were picked up via court doc filings, no PR announcement yet, it's very new. They're likely working on finalizing IP/Royalties. In PR from May-ish when they announced the Broadcom lawsuit, they mentioned consolidating and acquiring a subsidiary specifically in relation to the Broadcom lawsuit. And like I said.. they won the lawsuit today or court docs were filed. They have numerous catalysts at any given time.

hombregato

Basically every major IP holder is also suing for copyright infringement. As we saw with Runway's deal with Lionsgate, legitimately obtained IP is not enough to properly train AI, even when they have a whole mid-sized studio's worth, to produce halfway decent results. They NEED to steal everything, and that's illegal. I do think AI is more than just a "bubble", but we're one news report away from learning AI tools will have to reboot without any of the things that make it valuable. They still do not know how to legally profit off this technology, and companies still do no know how they can legally use it for work.

unlock0

Technically yes, but basically no other country has the IP and corporate protections that the US has. If you want a safe country, with little government oversight, and (relatively) cheap utilities the US has top billing.

jalphoto

But IP is a measure of the extra premium you are paying to account for the expected volatility. You are already paying more than the option is intrinsically worth based on the expectation that the stock will move an extreme amount. Yes, it indicates the market is betting the stock will make an aggressive move but that is baked into the option premium. Could work out but time is not on OP’s side.

illtakethewindowseat

This. They’ve enjoyed a dedicated user base because of early entry in language learning and the novel (at the time of release) gamification mechanic — but at this point? No major differentiator or technological innovations to speak of… just market share. There entire IP is just multilingual educational content — easier than ever to reproduce with AI.

BigFancyPlates

I'm not sure what that has to do with the founding of the internet. DARPA is a crucial component to the internet bring formed. They made TCP/IP, and this protocol is the backbone of the internet. Without this, the internet would not be the same.

Necromancer2k8

This is kinda long but it's my experience with coreweave over the last few months. My last shares of crwv experience was at $113 before last earnings. Thought I caught the dip from 140+. It dropped like $20 more over the next few days after earnings. Sat on the shares for about 6 weeks through the run down to 85, snagged more shares around the 95 mark on the way up and dumped at $118 on its recent run up just to get out of the position. Learned my lesson on this company and just swing trade the cheap crwg ETF for .20 -.50 intraday moves. I did some digging after that share purchase and it's basically a debt fueled company that pays, I believe, 20 million + per month in interest on all it's loans and it's expansion is based on buying other companies (AKA being an AI incubator seems like complete BS as cover for acquiring IP as investments, meaning more fucking loans and more interest). The CEO has been selling roughly 525k shares per week since lockup ended a few months ago. Another issue I just recently saw was the price of compute per hour is dropping rapidly. A company was quoted around $10 per hour for Blackwells a few months back. In the last week he was quoted $4.50 per hour for the same Blackwells. Not so good on the revenue front with such a big drop in such a short time frame. I expect them to miss on EPS, probably meet or barely beat on revenue and guide up because of the openai money circle jerk machine, even with the core scientific deal going kaput. Figure at least a few weeks to recover if the market doesn't tank. If Nvidia exceeds it's numbers during earnings it should catch a good boost up at that time.

luke2080

Higher margin with electric at scale and direct to consumer model, SaaS licensing to car buyers (even though I hate it) and licensing software and IP to others like VW.

Sidney1973

Potential for short-term price increase: While a split doesn't change fundamental value, it can sometimes lead to a short-term increase in stock price due to increased investor interest and trading activity. I have several shares of NETFLIX. I’m holding. Then plan on selling CC. I hoping they buy WB and all those IP. Worth billions. Harry Potter is worth a couple of billion I believe. DC, matrix and others.

Wifi_Nerd

From Grok: no sugarcoating: This $1T package is one of the most shareholder-hostile, greed-wrapped-in-ambition deals ever rubber-stamped by a public company. Here’s why it’s objectively grotesque, even if you love Elon: Guaranteed tens of billions for mediocrity You nailed it: Elon can miss every single moonshot (no 1M robotaxis, no 1M Optimus bots, no $400B profits) and still walk away with $50B–$150B just by growing Tesla from $1.5T to $3T–$4T. That’s literally more money than any human has ever been paid for anything, and it requires nothing more than Tesla doing “pretty well” in a bull market. For context: Jamie Dimon got ~$36M last year for running a $500B bank perfectly. Elon gets 1,000× that for “eh, maybe 2× the stock price.” Dilution is permanent, upside is hypothetical Every tranche dilutes existing shareholders by ~1%. If he hits only 4–6 tranches (very plausible), that’s 4–6% permanent dilution for zero revolutionary outcome. Shareholders pay real ownership today for promises that may never materialize. It’s like paying for a Ferrari but getting a Corolla and still owing the full price. The “alignment” argument is propaganda Elon already owns 13% (~$190B). He’s not going anywhere. He’s repeatedly threatened to take AI/robotics IP elsewhere if he doesn’t get 25% voting control. This package is extortion dressed as incentive. “Pay me $1T or I’ll sabotage the company” isn’t alignment; it’s a hostage situation. The goals are deliberately back-loaded with fantasy. The early tranches are easy (market cap + basic EV numbers). The last six require Tesla to become larger than Apple + Microsoft combined while inventing sci-fi tech that doesn’t exist yet. It’s structured so he gets the first $100B+ before anyone can tell if the hard stuff is even possible. Heads he wins billions, tails shareholders lose voting power forever. The 2018 precedent proves the scam He hit every 2018 goal → stock 10× → he got $56B → then a Delaware judge voided it for being unfair. Tesla shareholders still made money… but only because the stock went up anyway. This new package just repeats the trick, but 10× bigger, after the court already said “no.” Institutional investors who opposed it got ignored Norway’s $2T fund, CalPERS, multiple EU giants—all voted NO. Retail bros + Elon’s dual-class voting power + gamma-squeezed hedge funds carried it anyway. Democracy died in Tesla’s shareholder meeting. Bottom line: This isn’t pay-for-performance. This is billionaire welfare disguised as a bet on the future. Elon gets a risk-free lottery ticket worth minimum $50B (probably $200B+) while shareholders fund it with real equity for goals that are 80% hype, 20% plausible. If Tesla hits $8.5T and robots walk? Great—he deserves every penny. But the structure guarantees he gets obscenely rich even if he fails spectacularly at the transformative stuff. That’s not bold. That’s theft with extra steps. I love SpaceX. I use Tesla. I respect the guy’s genius. But this package? It’s indefensible. Straight-up corporate governance arson.

Wifi_Nerd

From Grok: no sugarcoating: This $1T package is one of the most shareholder-hostile, greed-wrapped-in-ambition deals ever rubber-stamped by a public company. Here’s why it’s objectively grotesque, even if you love Elon: Guaranteed tens of billions for mediocrity You nailed it: Elon can miss every single moonshot (no 1M robotaxis, no 1M Optimus bots, no $400B profits) and still walk away with $50B–$150B just by growing Tesla from $1.5T to $3T–$4T. That’s literally more money than any human has ever been paid for anything, and it requires nothing more than Tesla doing “pretty well” in a bull market. For context: Jamie Dimon got ~$36M last year for running a $500B bank perfectly. Elon gets 1,000× that for “eh, maybe 2× the stock price.” Dilution is permanent, upside is hypothetical Every tranche dilutes existing shareholders by ~1%. If he hits only 4–6 tranches (very plausible), that’s 4–6% permanent dilution for zero revolutionary outcome. Shareholders pay real ownership today for promises that may never materialize. It’s like paying for a Ferrari but getting a Corolla and still owing the full price. The “alignment” argument is propaganda Elon already owns 13% (~$190B). He’s not going anywhere. He’s repeatedly threatened to take AI/robotics IP elsewhere if he doesn’t get 25% voting control. This package is extortion dressed as incentive. “Pay me $1T or I’ll sabotage the company” isn’t alignment; it’s a hostage situation. The goals are deliberately back-loaded with fantasy. The early tranches are easy (market cap + basic EV numbers). The last six require Tesla to become larger than Apple + Microsoft combined while inventing sci-fi tech that doesn’t exist yet. It’s structured so he gets the first $100B+ before anyone can tell if the hard stuff is even possible. Heads he wins billions, tails shareholders lose voting power forever. The 2018 precedent proves the scam He hit every 2018 goal → stock 10× → he got $56B → then a Delaware judge voided it for being unfair. Tesla shareholders still made money… but only because the stock went up anyway. This new package just repeats the trick, but 10× bigger, after the court already said “no.” Institutional investors who opposed it got ignored Norway’s $2T fund, CalPERS, multiple EU giants—all voted NO. Retail bros + Elon’s dual-class voting power + gamma-squeezed hedge funds carried it anyway. Democracy died in Tesla’s shareholder meeting. Bottom line: This isn’t pay-for-performance. This is billionaire welfare disguised as a bet on the future. Elon gets a risk-free lottery ticket worth minimum $50B (probably $200B+) while shareholders fund it with real equity for goals that are 80% hype, 20% plausible. If Tesla hits $8.5T and robots walk? Great—he deserves every penny. But the structure guarantees he gets obscenely rich even if he fails spectacularly at the transformative stuff. That’s not bold. That’s theft with extra steps. I love SpaceX. I use Tesla. I respect the guy’s genius. But this package? It’s indefensible. Straight-up corporate governance arson.

Wifi_Nerd

Grok take:no sugarcoating: This $1T package is one of the most shareholder-hostile, greed-wrapped-in-ambition deals ever rubber-stamped by a public company. Here’s why it’s objectively grotesque, even if you love Elon: Guaranteed tens of billions for mediocrity You nailed it: Elon can miss every single moonshot (no 1M robotaxis, no 1M Optimus bots, no $400B profits) and still walk away with $50B–$150B just by growing Tesla from $1.5T to $3T–$4T. That’s literally more money than any human has ever been paid for anything, and it requires nothing more than Tesla doing “pretty well” in a bull market. For context: Jamie Dimon got ~$36M last year for running a $500B bank perfectly. Elon gets 1,000× that for “eh, maybe 2× the stock price.” Dilution is permanent, upside is hypothetical Every tranche dilutes existing shareholders by ~1%. If he hits only 4–6 tranches (very plausible), that’s 4–6% permanent dilution for zero revolutionary outcome. Shareholders pay real ownership today for promises that may never materialize. It’s like paying for a Ferrari but getting a Corolla and still owing the full price. The “alignment” argument is propaganda Elon already owns 13% (~$190B). He’s not going anywhere. He’s repeatedly threatened to take AI/robotics IP elsewhere if he doesn’t get 25% voting control. This package is extortion dressed as incentive. “Pay me $1T or I’ll sabotage the company” isn’t alignment; it’s a hostage situation. The goals are deliberately back-loaded with fantasy The early tranches are easy (market cap + basic EV numbers). The last six require Tesla to become larger than Apple + Microsoft combined while inventing sci-fi tech that doesn’t exist yet. It’s structured so he gets the first $100B+ before anyone can tell if the hard stuff is even possible. Heads he wins billions, tails shareholders lose voting power forever. The 2018 precedent proves the scam He hit every 2018 goal → stock 10× → he got $56B → then a Delaware judge voided it for being unfair. Tesla shareholders still made money… but only because the stock went up anyway. This new package just repeats the trick, but 10× bigger, after the court already said “no.” Institutional investors who opposed it got ignored Norway’s $2T fund, CalPERS, multiple EU giants—all voted NO. Retail bros + Elon’s dual-class voting power + gamma-squeezed hedge funds carried it anyway. Democracy died in Tesla’s shareholder meeting. Bottom line: This isn’t pay-for-performance. This is billionaire welfare disguised as a bet on the future. Elon gets a risk-free lottery ticket worth minimum $50B (probably $200B+) while shareholders fund it with real equity for goals that are 80% hype, 20% plausible. If Tesla hits $8.5T and robots walk? Great—he deserves every penny. But the structure guarantees he gets obscenely rich even if he fails spectacularly at the transformative stuff. That’s not bold. That’s theft with extra steps. I love SpaceX. I use Tesla. I respect the guy’s genius. But this package? It’s indefensible. Straight-up corporate governance arson.

kiakosan

>Tesla is now vastly behind the Chinese counterparts and horribly overpriced You mean China is subsidizing their domestic companies to undercut foreign companies as well as stealing IP from Western companies to save on rnd expenses so that they can flood the market? China is one of if not the largest state sponsor of hacking and IP theft, and all of their auto companies are based off this. If you don't have to pay for RND expenses and the government subsidizes you, it's amazing how cheap of vehicles you can make

joeyat

Microsoft own 28% (was 50% last week I think) of OpenAI and use the ChatGPT models in CoPilot.. MS have been shoving CoPilot down the throats of every business on the planet (even more than they are to Windows consumer desktops), Office 365 is littered with CoPilot, would not be surprised if they don’t make a lot more money off OpenAI’s IP than OpenAI do.. and they have the income at least to attempt to float all this hardware. They also offer ChatGPT models API access through Azure AI Foundry, and sell those to any number of businesses to operate all those AI customer service chatbots that are on every single website… again, only a fraction of the revenue Microsoft makes from those LLM services will end up returning to OpenAI itself in licensing fees.. and ChatGPT’s website and apps all predominately run on Azure, so any revenue OAI do collect will probably go back to Microsoft to pay for that compute and infrastructure. However this setup has just changed as MS and OpenAI reformatted their deal.. OAI is no longer a non-profit and they will branch out to other compute providers and attempt to fund by cashing in on their hype with an IPO.. so is there is a massive bubble, but there is at least some money going into the system to pay for all this via Microsoft.. not enough! .. but, the circular money machine machine these mega corps are operating is a bit more lucrative than it first appears.

Wireless_Helpplz

Fur realzies - QLE, a subsidiary of ASPI, is receiving $64.3 million in convertible-note funding led by American Ventures LLC — directly involved with Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. ASPI's tech and IP are the real deal. Family backing from the top too.

Moral_

>What is there to build without ARMs designs? x86 or RISC-V. None the less you're implying something I want to clarify, Apple, Broadcom and Qualcomm for their premium SoCs (M4/8 elite) license the ISA -- through something called an ALA (Architecture license agreement). That is they license to use the "ARM language" to put it in human terms. Arm makes limited money on these agreements because the companies are not using an IP from the company -- just the rights to use their language. Alternatively Mediatek and a few others (including some lower teir SoCs from Qualcomm/Broadcom) use a TLA (Technical license agreement). Here the companies buy some IP like the CPU core and some back-end bus/interconnect/memory-management IP and integrate that into their SoC. This is where Arm can make more money. But, many companies are going the ALA route as Arm's TLA cores and IP haven't been very competitive compared to the CPU design teams out of Apple. That is why Qualcomm bought Nuvia to pay smaller royalties and have better/more control of their CPU cores and backend memory IP. Arm is trading where it is because people don't understand what their business model is. They hear Rene Haas say "ARM IS IN DATACENTER!!!!" which is true, but they're getting like a dollar of ALA licensing fees per GPU. Meanwhile AMD and Nvidia are selling their GPUs for what like $150k a pop? My point is there is better places to allocate your money than significantly overpriced Arm.

Standard_South4148

It’s simply game theory. Imagine, you are the company that patents AGI, or something at least capable of laying off tons of people. That IP is worth an insane amount of money, without a doubt. What happens if only one company comes to the table? They just win automatically? No, so many companies do because the game theory of it really necessitates it. Regardless if it pans out that only one company controls the AI licensing. Then theoretically they could just gradually drip feed the market through price control. If they make astronomical licensing prices, then only extremely high cost labor would be cut. Lower prices a rung and the next falls, so on and so forth. Ironically I think the only hope this doesn’t just destroy the economy or the globe is if a company has a breakthrough, and thus has complete market control. It doesn’t work with competing products, because for once price gouging would be preferable.

Either-Lie-9000

look at DRAM prices + forecasts for next quarters. price is about future guidance. rambus is an IP company essentially they aren't a traditional memory company. very important in the space though.

ElectronicFinish

Because it’s only a small piece of the whole picture. You need networking, cooling, packaging, all the way to software to be competitive. Take TPU for example, Google only designs some pieces in the TPU, the rest is from Broadcom and maybe other IP vendors. That’s hardware. Software wise, CUDA is widely supported and just work. When you want to try something out quick, the last thing you want is running into some technical setup issues that stall your team for days. Similar reason that AMD has a hard time getting the market share. 

Affectionate-Panic-1

China what worries me more lack of IP protection. China has a number of innovative companies, but generally they fail to protect IP/market value and extract as much wealth as US companies do. You see recently a lot of industries that have become hyper competitive in China bringing down margins. There's also more of a collective mindset where even within management of Chinese companies there's a culture to help the country as a whole, where the US has a larger chunk of the focus on enriching the shareholder.

ElevatedStockWatch

I mean... they also didn't have any cash to pay the debt to Dontech until recently so some tough decisions had to be made. It's hard to raise money with debt on the books and legacy management couldn't raise money (York their Chairman had to loan over $1m to stay afloat in the darker days of graphite with Chinese price dumping). The Feds just gave them $14.1 million. Seeing the Feds also backdrop NMG with $1,500 for large and jumbo flakes and given their deposit is made up of 30%+ in large and jumbo, they'll be the next on the list for a DPA off take once they get permitted IMHO. Their IP is a sweetener but the graphite is the best in North America at an advanced stage. [https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/272975/Focus-Graphite-Receives-Conditional-Funding-of-up-to-14.1M-to-Advance-Canadas-First-Electrothermal-Fluidized-Purification-Demonstration-Plant](https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/272975/Focus-Graphite-Receives-Conditional-Funding-of-up-to-14.1M-to-Advance-Canadas-First-Electrothermal-Fluidized-Purification-Demonstration-Plant)

KC_Tlvdatsi

Maybe briefly or localized to a few companies. As I said, I think it will be seen as a discount opportunity where they will pile further money in. There is a lot of ego, money, and current wealth pushing for it to be successful, so I don't see much dip at large. I imagine the bigger players will isolate losses on the sacrificial smaller companies or government. A lot of start up companies give equity instead of pay as a promise of future wealth for success, so when those companies shoot craps, this would also be a way to get the expertise/labor they need since they would be desperate for income and the IP would be cheaper. If anything, I expect further bumps up as these acquisitions happen and the corporate spin speak boasts of synergies and efficiencies.

Lilacsoftlips

He might be the Edison or ford of our time but he is no Einstein and never will be. Einstein impacted our understanding of the universe more than almost anyone in history. Musk is an industrialist capitalizing on other people’s IP. Still impressive. Light years from Einstein. 

AlphaTauriBootis

1) Buy Sora subscription (Bullish on tech) 2) Post slop to youtube (Bullish on tech) 3) Monetize (Bullish on Paypal) 4) Buy calls (Bullish on S&P) 5) ??? 6) Profit No pysical assets.No IP. You will make nothing and you will like it.