I’ve been following the discussion for a few days, and the criticism from one user, “lasihelmi”, is technically colorful, but from an investor’s perspective, it overlooks a couple of key facts:
The moat isn’t just hardware: While speculating on an individual patent is interesting, Glaston’s real competitive advantage today is its service network and installed base. About a third of revenue comes from this high-margin service business. This “moat” isn’t countered simply with a NorthGlass “photocopier”; it requires decades of global presence.
Data and software vs. raw mechanics: The basic principles of glass tempering are old, but the game is now decided by automation and AI (such as Autopilot). If Glaston’s technology were truly completely obsolete or infringing on others’ patents, the company would not dominate the most demanding quality segments (like automotive glass and specialty work), where margins for error are non-existent.
Patents and legal matters: Publicly listed companies are obligated to disclose significant patent disputes. If the claims shouted here regarding NorthGlass’s success relying on some private individual’s patents were true, the matter would be settled in court, not just on a forum.
The company’s share price has been stagnating for a reason (market cycle), but “technological bankruptcy” is a claim quite far from what the company’s order books and market position indicate.