Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
That is what my post was pointing out!!
IMSC is non radio
and the rest cause cancer..
From Ted M a poster on SI:
Thanks for the post about Smith's approval for its portable device.
Questions:
1. Is it now on the 'approved' list? The PR didn't say it is.
2. How is approval for portables different than approval for bench-tops?
3. What is supposed to happen with the portables that expire at the end of June? Are they to be replaced by other portables, or bench-top?
4. Why isn't IMSC's portable being tested with the TSA?
5. Why is all this so confusing?
MMTD Radiation Source
63Ni, sealed 15 mCi
--------------------------
http://www.smithsdetection.com/mmtd.php
MULTI-MODE THREAT DETECTOR
enlarge
Feature Highlights
Department for Transport, Aviation security screening approved for cabin baggage, cargo, hold baggage and passengers
Rugged hand-held detector that identifies of explosives, narcotics, toxic industrial chemicals and chemical warfare agents in one system
Simultaneous detection and identification of explosives and narcotics from a single sample
Proprietary scan sequencing to detect conventional and home-made explosives
Truncated alarm for faster clear down
Additional Highlights
Remote, unattended operation capability with Wi-Fi/Ethernet
Intuitive, easy to use interface using a Windows® CE based platform
Unlimited data storage via SD memory card
Up to 5 hours of uninterrupted operation with hot-swappable battery
Integrated USB
The Multi-Mode Threat Detector (MMTD) takes portable threat detection to a new level without compromising portability or functionality. Designed to IP54 rating for operation in extreme environmental conditions, the MMTD is a rugged, portable hand-held system for the rapid detection and identification of explosives, narcotics or CWA/TICs, featuring an optimized detection capability for peroxides, taggants and methamphetamine precursors.
Four operating modes are available, including a dual mode setting for simultaneous detection of explosives and narcotics from one sample. Operators can also quickly switch between particle or vapor analysis methods to utilize the best method for detecting the suspected threat.
Other features include up to five hours of uninterrupted operation with the two hot-swappable batteries (included); remote, unattended operation for one or more units with alarm and status information reported to Command & Control via Wi-Fi/Ethernet; unlimited data storage via SD card; and USB port for exporting results. The included software allows advanced operators to perform more in-depth data analyses and print results via network connection.
The MMTD is for anyone who needs a hand-held system to detect a broad range of threats. Its tough exterior design is ideal for the soldier on the front line and the security agent working in harsh elements (e.g. Border/Ports). Its wide range threat detection capability and portability makes it ideal for aviation, special event and border security.
Specifications
Technology
Ion Mobility Spectrometry (IMS)
Radiation Source
63Ni, sealed 15 mCi
Richmond International Airport Evacuated After 'Serious' Threat
The Richmond International Airport was evacuated this morning after a threatening phone call.
The airport, located in Richmond, Va., received the threat just after 6 a.m., according to the Associated Press and the airport's Twitter page. The airport was then evacuated, as customers left the terminal en masse.
Police and canine units began sweeping the airport after 8 a.m. By 9 a.m., all public areas had been cleared, and only the restricted baggage areas were left to check.
Opps This posted 3 times? Why?
"J&J had to admitt, that they have no patent on the Strips"
"J&J had to admitt, that they have no patent on the Strips"
I love this;0)
Top 25 Global Freight Forwarders
Largest Providers by 2010 Gross Revenues and Freight Forwarding Volumes*
https://www.3plogistics.com/Top25_FF.htm
If DECN is successful in Medicare Competitive Bidding Program
Hopefully DECN managment cannot afford to do a buyout, and other
companies will gladly pay a much higher premium.
If DECN wins
there will be a buyout most likely
Thank you.
Hopefully in every drug store very soon.
================
Try this out:
On your way home from work, stop at your pharmacy and go to the thermometer section and purchase a rectal thermometer made by Johnson & Johnson
Be very sure you get this brand. When you get home, lock your doors, draw the curtains and disconnect the phone so you will not be disturbed.
Change into very comfortable clothing and sit in your favorite chair. Open the package and remove the thermometer. Now, carefully place it on a table or a surface so that it will not become chipped or broken.
(Now the fun part begins.)
Take out the literature from the box and read it carefully. You will notice that in small print there is a statement:
'Every Rectal Thermometer made by Johnson &Johnson is personally tested and then sanitized. '
Now, close your eyes and repeat out loud five times,'I am so glad I do not work in the thermometer quality control department at Johnson & Johnson.'
HAVE A NICE DAY; AND REMEMBER, THERE IS ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE WITH A JOB THAT IS MORE OF A PAIN IN THE ASS THAN YOURS!
Nice
Were can I buy them?
Wow
What is DECN stock price on that date?
VBG
As of today May, 2014:
today May 21. 2014 the verdict came out: Nestle lost and Denner can now sell its capsules for Nespresso-Machines.
On key software decision, top patent court grinds to a stalemate
Ten judges, seven opinions, 135 pages, zero legal precedent.
by Joe Mullin - May 13 2013, 9:32am EDT
LAWSUITS PATENTS
68
Munir Squires
Over the course of the past year a case about four financial software patents has taken on great significance. In 2007, Alice Corp accused CLS Bank of infringing its patents on a type of computerized trading platform that used "shadow accounts." In the years since then, the Supreme Court has significantly tightened up the rules about what is patentable. In 2011, Alice's patents were thrown out by a federal judge, who ruled they didn't cover patentable subject matter.
Last year, Alice won a surprising reversal. An appeals panel ruled 2-1 that Alice's patents should be allowed after all, suggesting only the most abstract of claims should be barred from winning patents under Section 101. The third judge, US Circuit Judge Sharon Prost, wrote a blistering dissent, suggesting that the ruling violated Supreme Court guidance, by allowing a patent on a financial technology that was "literally ancient."
With the waters thus muddied, the Federal Circuit, which hears all patent appeals, made the choice to reconsider CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. as an "en banc" case that all the judges would weigh in on. It became a highly anticipated decision, with many observers wondering what the nation's top patent court would have to say about software patents in the wake of several Supreme Court rulings giving more strict guidance about the patent system.
The answer is now clear: not much at all. A lengthy opinion issued Friday reflects nothing but division, with ten judges essentially splitting 5-5 on key issues. That means that the lower court decision will stand, and CLS Bank will be free to operate without making patent-related payments to Alice. It also means that no binding precedent will come from the ruling, since no portion of the document is signed by a majority of the judges. In a footnote on the front page of his opinion, Chief Judge Randall Rader wrote:
No portion of any opinion issued today other than our Per Curiam Judgment garners a majority. The court is evenly split on the patent eligibility of the system. Although a majority of the judges on the court agree that the method claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter, no majority of those judges agrees as to the legal rationale for that conclusion. Accordingly, though much is published today discussing the proper approach to the patent eligibility inquiry, nothing said today beyond our judgment has the weight of precedent.
The decision is reflective of a total division on the most important patent-related court in the country, and it will bring little relief to companies seeking guidance on what their chances are if they are confronted by a competitor or a "troll" seeking royalties.
A five-judge faction sees a path to narrow patent grants
Notably, this high-stakes patent battle came from the world of finance, where trading and banking methods have come to be patented only in recent years, usually with patent claims that also mention software and computers.
Reformers certainly had wanted the lower court decision to stand. Tech companies like Google, Red Hat and HP, as well as reform groups like Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, had urged such a result. But they also wanted case law that would make it clear some technologies—like financial innovations—simply aren't appropriate for patenting.
That didn't happen. CLS and its reformer allies barely won today. The victory came about as the result of a deeply split court, with the real division in the opinion coming down to what the judges think about "system" claims, where the judges effectively deadlocked 5-5. Seven of the judges agreed that other types of claims, the "method" and "computer-readable media" claims, aren't eligible for patents (although for different reasons.)
Five of the judges wanted to throw out the patents on "Section 101" grounds ruling that they were too abstract to be patented. Reviewing five relevant Supreme Court cases ranging from 1972 to 2011, this faction of the court concluded there should be an "integrated approach" to Section 101, finding primarily that patents "should not be allowed to preempt the fundamental tools of discovery" which must remain "free to all."
In Mayo v. Prometheus, for instance, a Supreme Court decision banned a patent on a diagnostic medical test, even though it described specific steps like "giving a particular man-made drug to a patient" and "drawing and testing blood." But the patented method boiled down to a natural law and added only steps that were "well-understood, routine, conventional activity, previously engaged in by researchers in the field."
With background of Supreme Court decisions, the judges found that Alice Corporation's idea of reducing risk by facilitating trades through a "third-party intermediation" was too abstract to be allowed. "[I]t is a 'disembodied' concept... a basic building block of human ingenuity, untethered from any real-world application," wrote the judges.
The system claims just take those method claims and add the words "apply it" on a computer, the judges suggest. By allowing the claims, the dissenting judges are ignoring Supreme Court precedent. "Not only has the world of technology changed, but the legal world has changed," they write. "The Supreme Court has spoken... on the question of patent eligibility, and we must take note of that change. Abstract methods do not become patent-eligible by being clothed in computer language."
Chief Judge: A computer without software “collects dust, not data”
The five-judge opinion shutting down the Alice patents is followed by a four-judge opinion that would allow the patents or at least their so-called "system" claims. The group of four judges, led by Chief Judge Randall Rader, made it perfectly clear that the decision as a whole means almost nothing.
Rader's four-judge group affirmed the broad scope of what is eligible for patenting under Section 101, written in 1952. "Both inventions and discoveries are eligible for patenting," wrote Rader. "Before 1952, the courts had used phrases including 'creative work,' 'inventive faculty,' and 'flash of creative genius' which compared the existing invention to some subjective notion of sufficient 'inventiveness' as the test for patentability."
In the view of these four judges the 1952 Act, written largely by a patent judge and a chief patent examiner, got rid of that "flash of creative genius." It simply stated that to get a patent, an idea couldn't be obvious. This simple test for "nonobviousness" would be more "objective" than a test for inventiveness.
The four-judge opinion is a full-throated defense of software patents. In one passage, the judges justify the software patents covering the "wonders" of the "smart phone" by citing Diamond v. Diehr, a 1981 Supreme Court case on a patent on a rubber-curing process that is a key decision relied on by software patent supporters. Rader wrote:
The combination of new software and a computer machine accomplishes wonders by reducing difficult processes—like determining where someone is on the earth, instantly translating Chinese to English, or performing hundreds of functions in a hand-held device called a “smart phone”—into a series of simple steps. For example, the Supreme Court upheld precisely this kind of combination for the computer-implemented parameters to run a rubber press—breaking the known steps into tiny mathematical calculations that advanced a known function beyond prior capabilities. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 179. Indeed, much of the innovative energy and investment of the past few decades have [sic] focused on software improvements that have produced revolutions in modern life, including the “smart phone.”
That software-hardware combination must be allowed to be patented, Rader argued. "Machines are expressly eligible subject matter. Having said that, however, were it not for software, programmable computers would be useless. A computer without software collects dust, not data."
In Rader's view, allowing software patents just isn't that different from allowing patents on more physical electronics. An inventor could claim a machine "with circuitry, transistors, capacitors, and other tangible electronic components precisely arrayed to accomplish the function of translating Chinese to English," wrote Rader. "The fact that innovation has allowed these machines to move from vacuum-tube-filled specialized mechanical behemoths, to generalized machines changed by punch cards, to electronically programmable machines that can fit in the palm of your hand, does not render them abstract."
Fearing “the death... of thousands” of business method patents
From there the defenses of software patents got more strident and more alarmed. Noting that the court is "irreconcilably fractured" over these patents, Judge Kimberly Moore writes that "there has never been a case which could do more damage to the patent system than this one." In her section of the decision, Moore grieves for "the death of hundreds of thousands of patents, including all business method, financial system, and software patents" that would take place, she believes, if the side voting to block Alice Corporation's patents prevailed.
In 2011 more than 42,000 patents were granted in computer software and hardware fields, she notes. If the other side prevailed, she calculates that up to 20 percent of them could have been rendered invalid, which would "decimate the electronics and software industries." That's actually "quite frankly a low estimate," writes Moore, who also fears for the "financial system, business method, and telecom patents" that could be at risk.
Finally, Judge Pauline Newman wrote her own opinion which seems to suggest Section 101 should never be used to kill patents. She suggested the idea that patents can inhibit research and innovation is just a vast misunderstanding. "[T]he popular press has accepted the theory that experimentation is barred for patented subject matter, as have my colleagues" she wrote, footnoting recent articles in The New York Times and The New Yorker which pointed out—accurately—that research scientists and doctors can and were being stopped from examining their own patients' genes by the owner of certain genetic patents.
Newman sees the fractured court as being an invitation for "opportunistic litigation" that could block innovation, but she sees the opportunists as those attacking the patent, not companies seeking to defend themselves from patent attacks.
Clarity on software patents will likely remain elusive without a clear Supreme Court ruling or legislative action on the issue. At the end of the day, the appeals court given control of the US patent system appears more divided than ever in the wake of the Alice Corp v. CLS Bank decision. A core of at least five judges is intent on protecting the wide grasp of the current patent system, resisting strategies—like a more strict reading of Section 101—that could chip away at its energetic sprawl.
READER COMMENTS 68
PRESS RELEASE
May 9, 2013, 6:00 a.m. EDT
IZEA and Handpicked Media Announce Strategic Partnership
U.S.-Based Influencer Marketing Firm Joins Forces to Extend U.K. Reach
ORLANDO, FL, May 09, 2013 (Marketwired via COMTEX) -- IZEA, Inc. (otcqb:IZEA), the pioneer of Social Media Sponsorship, announced a strategic partnership in the United Kingdom with Handpicked Media, a leading female-focused network of social influencers.
Handpicked Media is built-upon founder Krista Madden's vision of accumulating websites and blogs written by passionate Brits attracting a mass-engaged audience. Leveraging her 20+ years of experience working with beauty and fashion clients and 13 years of being an independent publisher, Krista began 'hand-picking' sites that went well together and formed Handpicked Media in 2009.
With over 650 registered influencers focusing on categories ranging from lifestyle and beauty to parenting and travel, Handpicked Media offers a diverse array of opportunities for advertisers to leverage in their Social Media Sponsorship campaigns.
As a strategic partner, brands will be able to access both IZEA's family of over 750,000 influencers around the world along with Handpicked Media's publisher-base in England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland for added scale and localization.
"Influencer marketing is not just an American or British trend, but a global phenomenon that has changed the way brands connect with consumers. It has and will continue to alter the entire advertising ecosystem," said Ryan Schram, Chief Operating Officer at IZEA. "By combining forces with partners in key geographies around the world, IZEA is able to extend unprecedented access to our clients to work with passionate, social influencers. We are thrilled to be working alongside Handpicked Media in the U.K. and look forward to announcing additional partners throughout 2013."
"The power of independent publishers and bloggers on social platforms is stronger than ever. We have established a network of key influencers in the U.K. at Handpicked Media who brands want to connect with," said Krista Madden, Founder and Managing Director at Handpicked Media. "Working with IZEA opens up the opportunity of expanding our reach globally and promoting our local talent on a much larger scale. We are very excited to be working with such a reputable company with the same passions as us. Thinking globally but acting locally is how online media works best."
Brands and agencies looking for more information on sponsorship opportunities in the U.K. can contact Jenni Sandells, Account Director/United Kingdom at jenni@izea.co.uk or visit the company online at www.izea.co.uk.
About IZEA IZEA, Inc. is the pioneer of social media sponsorship, operating key influencer marketing platforms Staree, Sponsored Tweets and SocialSpark. IZEA connects brands with social media influencers, helping them monetize their online and offline presence. The company has completed over three million social media sponsorships for customers ranging from small local businesses to Fortune 50 organizations. For more information about IZEA, visit http://izea.co.uk.
About Handpicked Media Handpicked Media (@HandpickedMedia) is an established
Finger Stick Has Promise as Prediabetes Test
from MedPageToday.com - medical news plus CME for physicians
PHOENIX (MedPage Today) -- Measuring capillary blood via finger stick assay was as accurate as venous blood sample assays in predicting 5-year likelihood of diabetes, researchers reported here.
Facial-recognition software precision may be years away
Low resolutions, tilted heads still confound
By Hiawatha Bray
| Globe Staff
April 29, 2013
It looks simple in the movies. The hero uploads a digital image of a suspect and software matches it with millions of data files to make a positive identification.
You have to hit your congressmen on the head with IMSC.
Tell them about IMSC technology directly.
Subtle does not work.
Good Luck All
Gio
Summit NW Corp operates out of three facilities. Summit NW in Portland is located near the Portland International airport at 5330 NE courier Ct., Suite 400 Portland, OR 97218 (view location). The facility consists of a 50,000 sq. ft of warehouse equipped with an interior / exterior color, digital camera system and motion security alarm system. Our station is equipped with a 10,000 sq. foot fenced area for secure container storage. To reach our ocean import and dispatching terminal, call 503-255-3826 or fax us at 503-255-3846.
Our 16 dock door station in Seattle, located at 2460 S. 161st St., SeaTac, WA 98158 (view location), is also equipped with a color, digital camera system. You can reach our import or dispatch team by calling 206-214-0109 or by fax at 206-214-0111.
Our terminal in Vancouver B.C. is operated in conjunction with our partner in Canada and gives our customers the ability to move cargo between Vancouver, B.C. and the Willamette Valley in Oregon overnight as well as provide our customers with seamless cargo transit between Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, B.C.
At Summit NW, we take pride in what we do. We offer quality service, premium customer service, and reliability. Our customers are the reason we're here and we strive to offer them the best service possible. Whether using our local pick up and delivery service, our linehaul services, warehousing or container devanning, SUMMIT NW DELIVERS.
In-Situ Processes
In-situ processes can be technically feasible in
deeper, richer deposits where the rock has natural
permeability or where permeability can be created by
fracturing.
True in-situ processes involve no mining.
?? The shale is fractured, air is injected, the shale is
ignited to heat the formation, and shale oil moves
through fractures to production wells.
?? Difficulties in controlling the flame front and the
flow of oil can limit oil recovery, leaving areas
unheated and some oil unrecovered. (Figure 3)
Modified in-situ (MIS) may involve mining below
or above the target shale deposit before heating to
create void space of 20 to 25 percent.
?? The shale is heated by igniting the top of the
target deposit and recovering fluids from
ahead of or beneath the heated zone.
?? Modified in-situ processes can improve
performance by heating more of the shale,
improving the flow of gases and liquids
through the rock formation, and increasing
volumes and quality of the oil produced.
Environmental Caveat: Both true and modified insitu
processes are challenged by the potential for
contamination of groundwater by pyrolized oil and
other metals and toxics that may be left behind.
Shell ICP: Shell’s new in-situ conversion process
(ICP) could produce high quality fuels in a more,
economic and environmentally sound manner. In this
substantial modification of the “true in-situ” process:
?? Electric or gas heaters, placed in closely spaced
vertical wells, slowly heat the shale for 2-4 years.
?? The slow heating creates microfractures in the
rock that augment natural permeability and
enhance fluid flow from heated zones to
production wells.
?? Resulting shale oil and gases are moved to the
surface by conventional wells and vapor recovery
technology.
?? Slow heating improves product quality; subsequent
product treating is less complex, than for
surface retorts or other in-situ approaches.
?? Much more oil and gas may be recovered from a
given area as shale oil and combustible gas
products can be produced at greater depths than
are accessible by other oil shale technologies.
?? The ICP process involves no subsurface
combustion of the resource, reducing
environmental impacts.
?? Close spacing, adjustable heat sources, and
modern downhole monitoring technologies vastly
improves temperature control.
?? Innovative “freeze wall” technology is being
tested to isolate production areas from intrusion
of groundwater until shale heating, production,
and post production flushing has been completed.
Shell is currently operating a modest field research
effort in northwestern Colorado’s Piceance Basin to
test ICP’s viability on the basin’s world-class oil
shale reserves. Critical issues include:
?? Development of reliable heater technology
?? Improvements of heater durability relative to
down hole rock mechanics
?? Validation of efficacy of freeze wall
technologies.
Figure 3: Conventional True In-Situ Process Schematic
Increasingly SURE FEB 02
Tight Overburden
Low Perm Shale Lower Seal
Lean Shale / Fracture porosity
Rich Shale
Rich Shale
Rich Shale
Producer Heaters
well
Freeze wall
barrier
Please send an Email detailing IMSC to Jimmie
Google this line her email and phone number come up:
Jimmie Oxley, professor of chemistry at the University of Rhode Island
J&J drug reps hand these things out like free candy.
They just want them used with their strips. J&J does not care if someone else sells them as long as the people who buy them use J&J strips.
JnJ's intention is to give a free meter to everyone on the planet and they do not give a damm if you sell it.
Once something is given to you ,if you want to sell it that is your right. Doctor or patient decides to sell.
This does not mean J&J are selling them.
Decision Diagnostics Corp. and Its Subsidary PharmaTech Solutions Seek to End Pharma Giant's Alleged Restraint of Trade Tactics
Press Release: Decision Diagnostics Corp. – Fri, Apr 5, 2013 9:20 AM EDT
DECN
0.2389
LOS ANGELES, CA--(Marketwired - Apr 5, 2013) - Decision Diagnostics Corp. (OTCBB: DECN), the exclusive world-wide sales, service and regulatory processes agent for the Shasta GenStrip, the revolutionary at-home glucose test strip specifically designed to work with the Johnson & Johnson's LifeScan family of glucose testing meters, announced today that on March 28, 2013 the company and its subsidiary PharmaTech Solutions, Inc. filed antitrust counterclaims against LifeScan, Inc. and LifeScan Scotland Ltd. (collectively, "LifeScan") in a patent action brought by LifeScan (2011cv04494) that is presently pending in the Northern District of California. DECN and PharmaTech are defendants in that action. DECN is a leading provider of prescription and non-prescription diagnostics, home testing products for the chronically ill and a premier developer of revolutionary cell phone centric e-health products and technologies.
The counterclaims assert violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which carry with them, if successful, awards of treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. DECN and PharmaTech allege that the LifeScan parties, which are subsidiaries of pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, have violated both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Section 1 makes illegal every "contract, combination ... or conspiracy in restraint of trade." Section 2 forbids monopolization and attempts to monopolize a product market. DECN and PharmaTech allege in their counterclaims that both prongs of the Act have been violated, by among other things, LifeScan's instituting of baseless patent litigation against PharmaTech and DECN intended to exclude the Shasta GenStrip from competing in a market dominated by LifeScan.
LifeScan and Johnson & Johnson have long claimed to be the market leader in the home blood glucose monitoring market, boasting an over thirty percent (30%) share of that market. The market is highly concentrated, dominated by four major pharmaceutical companies which together control 83.5% of that market. Blood glucose monitoring systems are comprised of a monitor and testing strips. Significantly, until the potential entry of the Shasta GenStrip, all four market leaders paired their propriety blood glucose meters with their own testing strips, forestalling any competition from competing strips, which could offer substantial costs savings to consumers. The FDA's recent clearance of the GenStrip for use with certain OneTouch Ultra meters clears the way for such competition and for the substantial consumer savings it would bring.
The antitrust counterclaims allege that, to maintain its much-vaunted market leadership in the blood glucose monitoring market, LifeScan has illegally "tied" the use of its popular OneTouch Ultra meters to its own proprietary testing strips. Tying arrangements violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they force purchasers to forego free choice in the marketplace. These "tying" transactions are often declared to be illegal "per se," that is, so plainly in contravention of antitrust principles that they require no further analysis of effects on competition.
The counterclaim alleges that, to the extent that LifeScan claims its meters (glucose measuring device) are protected by patent, which DECN and PharmaTech vehemently dispute, LifeScan has no right to expand any such rights to control the sale of strips. There is no functional reason to require consumers to use the LifeScan strips, nor is there any patent justification. PharmaTech and DECN claim that LifeScan has taken numerous steps, including the institution of baseless patent litigation, to eliminate competition and to exclude the GenStrip from the market so as to require exclusive use of the LifeScan strips with the OneTouch Ultra meter. These tactics violate longstanding and fundamental antitrust principles. They injure consumers by forbidding competition from the lower-priced GenStrip. Second, DECN and PharmaTech also allege that LifeScan has monopolized and is attempting to monopolize the market for test strips compatible with LifeScan's meters and has created a dangerous probability of success. These acts have no basis in any patent or functional principal, and only serve the purpose of preserving LifeScan's market dominance.
Disclaimer:
GenStrip™ test strips are a product of Shasta Technologies, LLC and are not manufactured, distributed, endorsed, or approved by nor associated with LifeScan®, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson® Company, manufacturers and distributors of the OneTouch® Ultra® Family of Meters and OneTouch® Ultra® test strips.
Forward-Looking Statements:
Forward-looking statements are statements made herein which do not address historical facts and, therefore, could be interpreted to be forward-looking statements. We can give no assurance that the expectations indicated by such forward-looking statements will be realized. There may be other risks and circumstances that we are unable to predict. When used in this release, words such as "believes," "expects," "forecasts," "intends," "projects," "plans," "anticipates," "estimates" and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although there may be certain statements not accompanied by such expressions. Such statements are subject to factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from anticipated results. The forward-looking statements included in this press release represent our views as of March 31, 2013. We anticipate that subsequent events and developments may cause our views to change.
.
.
Contact:.
.
Keith Berman
Secretary and CFO
info@decisiondiagnostics.com
2660 Townsgate Road
Suite 300
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Ph: 805-446-2973
Fax: 805-446-1983
.Court overturns $482M patent decision against J&J
Heir to Johnson & Johnson fortune dies at 76
J&J recalls all OneTouch Verio blood sugar meters
News Summary: J&J recalls blood sugar meters
Thank you for that. Is GNE now waiting for an environmental permit
or have they already started work?
The day Israel gives GNE the ok to drill.
What will the share price be?
$ 25? 40? 50?
thanks
Thank you;0)
I needed that!
MKRS
Does their admiral have any juice?
What happened to their radar system that they finished last year?