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.
LOL Not so fast my frantic friend.
Your reference has already been addressed. Try to keep up.
The text in question is another of those 'misleading' attempts by DNAG to try to claim capabilities that they do not possess.
While the underlined text appears to support your claim, the relevant portion is elsewhere.
Specifically, the identified genes from DNA samples of a population of 500 unrelated, multi-ethnic donors were scored,...
Did you catch the relevance of the word 'scored'? Not sequenced but 'scored'. It means that existing data from the public domain was reviewed, and the the resulting 'mined' data shows previously unreported snps. Not exclusive snp's. Unreported snp's...in a public database.
Your second underlined statement is a repeat of the same thing except that in this instance the word 'scored' has been replaced with the new concept 'resequenced'. We have already adressed the concept of 'resequencing'. lol
Nice try, but you really need to understand the science. We have already talked about the throughput ability of DNAG's sequencer. It should be childsplay for someone of your intellect to apply that throughput to the size of a single gene and then extrapolate how long it would take to sample 500 donors. Even you could not make a case that such an exercise is feasible in the time period since DNAG's inception.
I rest my case...
Sorry pal......case dismissed!
Ahhh, gentle reader's, in spite of his earnest histronics, he is not only back but he is responding directly to me. Who would have guessed?
I stand by every single snippit of info I say.
How about?
I'm through with InvestorsHUB...
or,
Michael out.
or the latest,
I'll only respond to Frog's quips unless asked to by someone other than himself.
Can we count on you standing by these 'snippit's' (sp)? lol
C'mon Mike, don't wuss out now. We only had three issues to discuss and you already conceded the first two. Are you throwing in the towel on the third one already?
So how many nucleotides are involved in a 'single nucleotide polymorphism'?
Go ahead, you can tell us.
You know it's not going to work to just stamp your foot and claim to be 'smarter' if you won't stay in an argument long enough for anyone to judge your 'smartness'. lol
Show anything and everything I've posted to any geneticist or even Frudakis himself.
Where you been pal? Frudakis has already reviewed your posts and responded. Didn't you watch him (or his minion) try to spin your stuff as he tried to support you while he was actually cutting your throat? lol
You need to pay more attention.
And whatever you do now, don't go away. You have successfully brought the pretenders out of their hole again.
Work2p is going to provide incontrovertible proof that DNAG has sequenced all of their own snp's and patented them. (By incontrovertible, I assume he means documentation from somewhere other than DNAG, but we will have to wait and see.)
Chrisb has been able to follow along in his sycophantic glory and claim that it is 'not easy being green'.lol (This comprises one third of his repertoire along with 'todamoon' and 'they take out the trash on IV'.) Hey chris, how easy is it being yellow?.lol
And last (and probably least) Dnaowner has been able to join in and feel useful for the moment.
Don't leave and make them crawl away again, they apprently need a leader such as yourself. None of them seem willing to participate on their own, coming out only when they sense an opportunity to pile on. lol
I jst want you to know that in spite of your ability (or lack thereof) to stand behind your words, I appreciate your participation.
welcome back,
frog
I certainly have.....have you?
They have never discovered a snp.
SNP 'discovery' in all of their documentation does not refer to the actual discovery of the snp but rather it refers to the discovery of the location of the snp on the gene. The snp itself is from the public database.
They do not 'sequence' in the accepted use of the word, they 'resequence' or 'review' the public genome data to confirm their 'discovery'.
As has been mentioned here many times in the past, the misleading use of terminology is NOT an accident.
By the way, this argument can quite easily be challenged. All you have to do is identify a single snp in the patent application that does NOT exist in the database. For someone of your obvious talent and skill this should not be a problem, should it?
Merely show us the snp and then show us the area in the database where that snp should (but does not) reside.
And please hurry, we are all atwitter with anticipation.
Heeeeeeeee's baaaaaack!!!
And about time to, the boredom was killing me.
Apparently he has abandoned any pretentions in regard to DNAG's ability to sequence SNP's, and is now resigned to the fact that SNP's are public domain. That is unfortunate because the stupid arguments to the contrary certainly provided a modicum of entertainment value and served to bring several of the pretend intellectuals out of hiding. Oh well, can't have everything.
Fortunately for the forum we still have a point of contention to entertain the troops with. Our friend is still either completely baffled by the concept of a 'single nucleotide polymorphism', or else is trying desperately to cover his previous blunders. Let's try to find out which it is...shall we?
So far we have; (from a previous post)
..a single nucleotide polymorphism put simply is sequence of previosuly inconspicuous DNA that people have in common.
(Notice the implied plurality of the word 'sequence)
As well as today's;
Which leads us again to what an SNP is... ...Really quickly....a 3 nucleotide subset with a hypervariable 3rd position.
Let's give extra credit for the obfuscating bombast, but let us focus on the numerical values shall we?
I must admit that I have made an inadvertant error in my characterization of my esteemed debating partner, I apparently gave him the benefit of the doubt and therefore made an unwarranted assumption. For that I must apologize to both him and the board.
Since there are only three words in the description of a 'single nucleotide polymorphism', and since he had already demonstrated his understanding of the 'p' word, I was forced to assume that since his description of a snp was so completely wrong he must be unaware of the nature of a what a nucleotide is. I therefore jumped to the conclusion that he could not have even attended a genetics class, as that is one of the basic building blocks of the entire science. Today however, our friend has shown that he is in fact conversant with the subject of nucleotides and has even demonstrated a rudimentary understanding of the concept. Perhaps he has in fact been near such a class after all.
Such an understanding however, when reviewed in relation to the concept at hand, is not necessarily good news for our friend. While it is possible that he has a basic understanding of 'nucleotide' he is therefore woefully ignorant on the concept of 'single'. Genetics may not be his weakness after all, perhaps it is English.
For the edification of the observers here is an unbiased (and unspun) definition.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/snps.shtml
Single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs (pronounced "snips") are DNA sequence variations that occur when a single nucleotide (A,T,C,or G) in the genome sequence is altered. For example a SNP might change the DNA sequence AAGGCTAA to ATGGCTAA. For a variation to be considered a SNP, it must occur in at least 1% of the population.
And now dear friends let us await the response. Will it be bombast or will it be bluster? We can only wait on the edge of our seat in anticipation.
Additionally, how we he arrange his response?
He has already claimed that he won't respond to me unless asked by someone else. How do you suppose he will get around that obstacle? We know he is good to his word, don't we? lol
After all, who can forget..?
I'm through with InvestorsHUB...
Michael out.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=10778782
regards,
frog
You mean the message board with no messages?
One post in the last four days.
What's the matter don't you guys have anything to say?
You post more over here, trying to get converts, than you ever do over there, what's with that?
just curious,
frog
Thinking is good!
Shanghai?
Apparently one of anotherday's posts was deleted, possibly due to it's ill manners. As the brunt of the attack I very much appreciate the efforts of the board monitors.
However, in this instance, together with the ill mannered attack was some very pertinent information that would benefit the board to know.
In this instance I would have no objections to the post being re-instated. Heavens knows I have developed a fairly thick skin over the years. Information is worth much more than personal pride.
Board monitors please reconsider your actions in this single instance.
best regards,
frog
Am I ? lol
Look, I know how bad you want to be right and how frustrating it is to never manage it, but you are going to have to learn to do better DD.
Celera abandoned their attempt to sell a subscription service to their database years ago. They turned their data over to the public.
regards,
frog
Dnaowner,
ALL SNP's are public domain. Period.
Not all of them have been published yet as the discovery effort is still in full swing. As you have pointed out Perelgen alone has discovered a huge percentage.
Since the entire Human Genome is public domain as it was discovered in large part due to public funds, all SNP's belong to the public.
No one has exclusive rights to any of them.
regards,
frog
Well over a hundred words to not answer a yes or no question. Not bad. But your right I did get you and yes you did answer my questions.
You did everything you could to try to show that you were supporting MykelMan and dissing me, but in fact you proved my point and actually allowed a little bit if truth to enter the conversation. For that I thank you.
You might like to characterize the discussion as you and MikelMan and the bit players against me. But in reality, when it came to the subjects under discussion, it boiled down to MikelMan, Work2play and dnaowner against you and me.
Allow me to elaborate.
One of the main assumptions of the majority of the investors on this board is that DNAG is in the business of discovering SNPs and building an exclusive library of them. This library protected by patents it is assumed, will enable them to 'corner the market' on any access to or utilization of those SNPs by anyone else in the business, competitors of big pharma. Many people here think that all the references to 'SNP discovery' made by DNAG, actually refer to discovering new SNPs, as opposed to the actual meaning of trying to 'discover' a way to use those public domain SNPs as a means to characterize genomic differences between differently behaving populations.
My issue with MykelMan was his confident 'knowledge' that DNAG was sequencing and ID'ing most it's own SNPs.
Both Work2play and dnaowner concurred with him at my expense (as expected. lol). You on the other hand, (while blasting me, lol) agreed with me.
It is a very important point, and now that we have established it, and with such authority, perhaps we can continue to allow people to make their investment decisions based on a truer understanding of the technology and not on an unreasonable and false assumption.
I'm sure you wouldn't want them to continue under false assumptions....would you?
The facts are; SNP's are public domain...all of them.
All AIM's (since they are either single SNP's or a specific sequence of them) are also public domain.
ADMIXMAP is public domain (Anyone that wants it can download it from the internat).
DNAG science is NOT based on exclusive access to exclusive data, it is based on trying to connect the dots between public domain data and specific sets of characteristics within the population that indicate the response or lack thereof to drugs or treatment of disease.
As soon as everyone understands these facts, there will certainly be a lot less misunderstanding between those that understand what is going on and those who think they do.
regards,
frog
Well, that took a really long time to not answer a simple question. And no, you haven't resolved anything yet.
Let's try to make it as simple as possibly. A yes or no question.
Yes or no, all SNP's are public domain?
After you get past this one (try to do it in less than a hundred words) we'll move on to similar questions about AIMs and ADMIXMAP.
Don't worry about responding to me by name, it matters not at all to me.
On the other hand there are many loyal investors who are anxious to hear your response.
So what is it? Yes or No?
best regards,
frog
anotherday, You're changing the subject.
Yes you called Mykelman a liar. He said DNAG discovers SNP's, you said all SNP's are public domain.
Resolve that.
You can go off on your rant about 'paid bashers' later.
Get out of this one first.
Or slink off into the shadows....again.
Aha, excellent. MykelMan you have brought out another of the denizens. This has been one of the most fun interludes in a long time.
This guy doesn't come out very often but when he does it is always memorable. lol
Hello anotherday, long time no see....well not with this alias anyway. lol
This is an interesting tactic that you are employing this time....how would you characterize it? Sort of a meta-spin...wouldn't you say?
You are actually supporting MykelMan at the same time you call him a liar and you are condemning me while agreeing with me. Not bad.
MykelMan says DNAG discovers SNPs, Froggie says they don't all SNP's are public domain. Aontherday says everybody knows SNPs are public domain but Froggie is a liar. lol
MykelMan says DNAG is into pan genomic screening and SNP discovery, Frogie says 'no way'. Anotherday says DNAG has nothing to do with pan genome SNP discovery, but Froggie is spinning. lol
Doctor, your standard MO is to show up, blast away, then tell everyone that you can't hang around but to keep the faith, then before anyone has time to respond you crawl back under your rock. Is that what we can expect this time?
regards,
frog
ps. Tell us more about CRA, we all love to hear those old stories...and you tell them so well.
thetide,
It wasn't addressed to me so I didn't see it until it was too late.
No harm, no foul.
Bag8ger, I'm not sure where you are going with this, perhaps you could elaborate.
I suggested that it is unethical to tell people where to invest their money and likened it to telling an old lady which number on the roulette table to bet her life savings. You seem to suggest that it is equally unethical to explain to her the odds of winning and in so doing drive her from the table.
Is that your point, that both premises carry an equal ethical burden?
Looking forward to your response.
frog
thetide, What an amusing question under the circumstances.
...What iz a good micro-cap investment frog;
After all these years of your observation and rsponses to my posts, I am somewhat taken aback by it. lol
I'm afraid I am unable to respond, it is plumbing the depths of unethical behavior to advise others where to spend their hard earned money. I might suggest that it is comparable to telling a little old lady which number on the roulette table to bet her life savings. I am not inclined to do either. Sorry.
regards,
frog
work2p, Give me a break. An ABI3700 sequencer? Are you serious.
Read the context of the discussion. Our favorite expert is touting pan genomic scans and sequences.
As you knoe perfectly well A SINGLE ABI 3700 sequencer can detect a FULL 200 bases an hour.
Let's see....in order to sequence a SINGLE genome would only take fifteen million hours.....or six hundred and twenty-five5 thousand days......or One thousand, seven hundred YEARS.
So how many do you suppose they've done so far? lol
Mykel may have made a couple of minor mistatements, but it's clear he has a good working knowledge.
Yeah, a couple of mistatements. He doesn't know what a nucleotide is, he has extensively studied the technology of the company WITHOUT understanding what a SNP is. There is no way he ever managed to pass a genetics course, no way. He's has as questionable grasp of the technology as you have.
I probably should stick to engineering but you my friend should stick to selling those septic systems. lol
It's nice to ave you back.
regards,
frog
Hey look the gang is coming out from hiding. What's going on guys?
Won't anybody post anything interesting in your clubhouse? lol
As I recall, most of you ran away because you got tired of 'winning' (sic) all those arguments with me.
Where's your fearless leader, coudln't you hold ming's hand and get him to come out and play?
Now that you are all here, perhaps you'd like to help us out with the topic du jour.
How many here can tell us how many nucleotides there are in a SINGLE nucleotide polymorphism?
For some reason there appears to be some confusion in regards to this matter.
I say there is only one, but the new expert thinks differently. lol
Don't do anything to spare my feelings, feel free to disagree with me.
We all look forward to you sharing now that you have ventured out into the light.
Welcome back,
frog
work2p, Hey long time no see, where you been HIDING?
I know your not going to present DNAG advertising as proof of anything. lol
Tell you what, go back and review bag8gers question regarding 'sequencing and resequencing' you will discover that DNAG plays very fast and loose with the term 'sequencing'.
It certainly doesn't mean what they pretend it means.
Oh, and by the way don't imagine for a moment that their ambiguous terminology is an accident. lol
Tell you what bag, how about a little tit for tat?
You ask me a question (probably based on your long term appreciation of my contributions);
Which of DNAG's competitors sequence to discover SNP's?
How about if I answer your question if you'll tell us what a SNP is. What do you say?lol
regards,
frog
Michael my friend. I'm afraid it is much too late for you to try to bluff you way out of this one.
How you were able to 'Ace' genetics without knowing what a nucleotide or a SNP is, beggars belief.
I'm not sure whether it reflects more poorly on you or the 'world class institute' that you allegedly attend.
Tell you what, why don't you spend some time at the library and spend some time familiarizing yourself with the concept and get back to us with the result.
Here is your most recent definition as a starting point:
..a single nucleotide polymorphism put simply is sequence of previosuly inconspicuous DNA that people have in common.
Together with:
if I'm not mistaken an SNP has to be at least a sequence of 3 codons of DNA
Now even bag8ger knows that this is nonsense. It is even possible (but not probable) that chrisbasket knows it as well. (I don't hold out much hope for dnaowner, but I suppose it's possible that even he knows.)
Now after you have been to the library and have gotten on top of this concept, perhaps you will let us know how far you got with the patents.
regards,
frog
ps. It's going to take a long time to live this one down. lol
Dude, Like chill.
Damn, I like this guy.
but there you go, accusing me of ignorance when it's obvious I know what I'm talking about.
There is something obvious here....but it's not what you think it is.
regards,
frog
Sorry for the delay but I was interupted in mid post, here is the complete post.
MykelMan17X, You may perhaps "see where I'm coming from..." but you still have no idea what DNAG does.
As for SNP's....you have to sequence the DNA before you find the SNP.
And since DNAG is incapable of sequencing DNA, it stands to reason therefore, that they have never found a SNP.
single nucleotide polymorphism put simply is sequence of previosuly inconspicuous DNA that people have in common.
Put simply it is nothing of the kind. You do know what a nucleotide is don't you? Do you understand the concept of 'single'? Now put them together and understand that the phrase is self descriptive.
(I would have to look it up but if I'm not mistaken an SNP has to be at least a sequence of 3 codons of DNA)...
Look it up, you're mistaken. A SNP is a significant subset of a single codon.
that's where DNAG's approach comes in. Instead of relying on SNP's provided to them they perform a "pan-genome" scan
No they don't.
-DNAG on the other hand is taking the "pan-genome AND SNP" approach
Repeating it over and over won't make it so.
Wow, I'm really enjoying this discussion, how about you?
I'm learning so much.
regards,
frog
MykelMan17X, You may perhaps "see where I'm coming from..." but you still have no idea what DNAG does.
As for SNP's....you have to sequence the DNA before you find the SNP.
And since DNAG is incapable of seq
bag8ger, You decide.
Is 'direct resequencing' different from 'resequencing'?
If "high throughput sequencing technologies" can only 'directly resequence' 20 genes per year, how many do you think DNAG can do with a PC and a SNP machine?
Errr........none?
The 'resequencing' described in their text has a different definition altogether.
regards,
frog
Dnaowner, Don't take it personally.
There is no shame in misunderstanding a sentence, there is no harm in an honest mistake.
When someone takes the time to explain to you your misconception, you should appreciate the effort, not try to insult your way out of the spotlight.
regards,
frog
Dnaowner, Very good catch, unfortunately it is tangential to the discussion.
We were talking about sequencing the genome and discovering SNP's. my esteemed colleague seems to think that DNAG has the ability to sequence or identify the order of the bases in DNA samples. They don't. What they can do is review the sequence data of others (resequence) and try to discover information within it.
They claim to have 'discovered' SNPs in the data of others, but what they don't explain is that this data, and the polymorphisms within it, are public domain information.
As you will see in your post, the data came from... "We obtained candidate SNPs from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Database (dbSNP), which generally provided more candidate SNPs than were possible to genotype."
And if you parse the sentence "113 SNPs were discovered in CYP1A2 (7 gene regions, 5 amplicons, 10 SNPs found)" You will understand that the discovery was NOT the SNP's themselves, but the region in which they existed. It is this information that is pertinent to the discussion.
best regards,
frog
Excellent....a live one!
MykelMan17X, First of all let me welcome you to the arena, it has been a long time since we had such an intelligent voice to provide insight into the science. You will be a great asset to the board.
Before I begin my point by point rebuttal to your previous post let me say how much I appreciate your participation. You indicate that while your expertise in Genetics is awe inspiring, you still consider yourself a novice at investing. I will therefore break this response into two parts. The first will be the rebuttal the second will contain some advice about investments.
To begin,
They have machines that sequence the protein-coding genome of all those patients...
They have no such thing. They have never sequenced a single protein in their entire existence.
then a very powerful computer .... a PC.
I'd venture to say the overwhelmingly vast majority of SNP's and markers ID'ed were discovered in-house..
You may venture..but you'd be wrong. See above. DNAG has never discovered a single SNP, they don't have the technology nor the expertise. They have a SNP machine.
.I don't ""pretend"" to know so don't accuse me of such - I DO KNOW the science; all the above came off the top of my head.
Of course you do, after all you aced genetics at one of the top institutes in the world...and off the top of your head to boot. Believe me we are all impressed.
(note: If by some chance you detect a smidgeon of either arrogance, contempt or even condescension in my tone, please be aware that it is not directed at you. Apparently it works to keep bag8ger out of the discussion.)
All I can say is try me little one.
Not me....I know when I'm in over my head. I never even went to one of the top institutes let alone ace genetics there.
I don't impress my stock skills on anyone here in the board because it's not my place...so learn from me.
Believe me friend, we are all learning from you.
I apologize to the board for humoring this fellow..
No apologies necessary, you have humored everyone.
Some investment advice (specific to this stock).
One of the best indicators of the strength of a company's new technology is the plethora of that technologies practitioners that contribute to the discussion about the stock. They are aware of the potential and familiar with the work of the company's team. They know a good thing when they see it and they put their money where they know it will grow. For example in the case of DNAG the myriad of scientists and engineers that have flocked to the stock are led by an Art Historian? who aced genetics at one of the top institutes.
Another thing to be aware of is the possibility that the company newsletters are designed to enhance the investors confidence in the stock. They therefore may tend to present their text just a little bit in a positive light and perhaps not mention any of the obstacles. On the other hand they just might lie outright. Interestingly enough some years ago our founder told us that he had an epiphany in the shower one night and realized that he could use his platform to provide a full genome scan for under a thousand dollars. As someone who aced genetics at one of the top institutes I'm sure you can appreciate the significance of that. Unfortunately, the considerable revenues that such an acheivement would provide have never materialized and the industry is STILL working on the problem and are currently talking about a HUNDRED thousand dollar scan. (Stupid industry!)
Anyway let me close now (we can save the rest for later)and let me reiterate my appreciation for your participation. I am all aflutter as I look forward to hearing from you again.
With very best regards,
frog
Don't be sorry bag, those are good numbers.
Please don't spend any time trying to decide if is arrogance or contempt that causes you to leave the room, just don't let either of them get in your way. Bye.
bag8ger, Calm down, you'll blow a blood vessel.
I'm sorry if any 'display of expertise' caused you to be 'confounded'. That was not my intention.
The discussion was about the PR. Unfortunately your interpretation of what wasn't written in the PR led us to the actual patents. Next time read what it says and not what you want it to say.
The PR says nothing about exclusivity, in fact it suggests that there are more than one viable method.
Patenting a method does not exclude other methods.
While many people assume that patents are sources of revenue, they are almost exclusively obtained to allow a company to continue to use their own technology unimpeded by frivolous litigation.
There will be no revenues generated by this patent.
Feel free to use whatever excuse you want for leaving the discussion...............my 'all consuming contempt' is OK with me. Although 'all consuming' is a little over the top. lol
regards,
frog
MykelMan17X, Perhaps after you have perused the patents while sitting on the can, you will favor the board with your opinion.
Don't come here pretending to understand the 'science' of DNAG when you are completely ignorant of what they are doing.
Everybody with the minimum number of requisite brain cells is aware of the value and promise of the science. Not to mention those who 'aced genetics' at one of the top institutes in the world.
For your information however, DNAG does not practice genetics per se, they practice statistical analysis on the data provided by high thruoghput snp machines. The effort of discovering SNPs is left to others. The 'platform' that has provided the meager offerings of the company to date is a statistical algorithm created by Doctoral Statisticians.
No one is questioning the science, they are questioning the prostitution of the science as a front for a stock printing operation.
So lets go real Michael....why don't you read the patents and come back and tell us what someone who aced genetics thinks of them. We look forward to your expert opinion.
regards,
frog
Virgil,
According to one of the company's founders there are ten major methods available in the literature, all are published.
How much more efficient will DNAG's have to be to provide any incentive for a potential licensee?
There is a much better reason to explain the lack of any reference to licensing the technology than preserving integrity.
regards,
frog
MykelMan17X, Not even that.
...put simply - a patent is validation that our process actually works.
There is no requirement that the process works in order to patent it. Only that it be unique and non-obvious.
bag8ger, Every time you bite off more than you can chew, you retreat clumsily into the shadows.
Do you really want to bring the discussion up from the 'banter' level and actually discuss the patents?
I am more than willing to do so, just say the word.
We can start with the first one based on the premise that higher throughput can be achieved by using one temperature chamber set at an intermediate temperature instead of two chambers set at different temperatures.
Can you think of a way to get around that one?
How about two chambers? LOL
How about the second one that does not have one single claim survive from the original application. I repeat EVERY claim made in the initial application was either discarded or rewritten. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, how about you?
On second thought bag, you'd be better off running away and hiding for a while..
bag8ger, Of course they needed the patent.
How else could they have continued to pick your pocket for all these years without such accoutrements?
bag8ger, 'Vigorously defend' against what?
They are clearly saying that the patent protects their own methods, but there are other methods.
Don't spend your winnings yet.
bag8ger, Wrong again.
DNAG only patented the method, read the PR. That gives them exclusive rights to their specific method only, any other methods are unimpeded.
regards,
frog
Fair enough, a little desperate perhaps, but definitely a passable spin effort.
I get where you see the "..others are capable of performing objective, assumption-free haplotype analyses..."
Where do you get the "...our patented method is a superior method..." ?
It doesn't say that anywhere.
As for the pps, since when is a 12% increase in pps a lack of market reaction?
When a 12% increase equates to 2 'tenths' of a cent! lol
So far so good.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide your spin to the following;
"We plan to vigorously utilize and practice our patents and we will be reviewing the fields of genetic testing, drug development, forensic sciences and consumer products with our patent counsel to determine potential areas of development. We want to ensure that we extract the greatest economic value out of this patent for our shareholders and investors."
"..utilize and practice..." sounds good doesn't it?
Are they leaving anything out? Especially when you consider the next part;
"...extract the greatest economic value..."
Why do you suppose they left out license ?
Maybe they just didn't think of it? Or what?
regards,
frog
Virgil, Don't be ridiculous.
I am eager to hear what you have to say about the new patent.
You are not in the least bit interested in anything I have to say about patents.
The last time we discussed the subject you would not even read the patent in question, nor discuss any of the salient points.
However, for the sake of well mannered discussion, I will solicit your opinion on the following phrase from the PR. Keeping in mind the assumed value of a patent is the exclusivity it bestows upon the owner.
The recent patent provides legal protection for DNAPrint's status as one of a very few companies currently capable of performing objective, assumption-free haplotype analyses.
What does "one of very few" mean?
One of a hundred? One of a dozen? One of six?
On the other hand, what is your definition of exclusive?
Do you suppose the apparent lack of exclusivity bestowed by this patent allowance is in any way related to the apparent lack of market reaction to the 'real news'?
regards,
frog