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.
Dnaowner, The entire company and it's associated IP was acquired for $21,500.00. Are you unaware of this?
Dnaowner, I have no problem with that, it sounds like an excellent motivator, and makes complete sense.
However, and here's the rub, it suggests that the acquisition of the technology was just a crumb to facilitate the hiring. The technology therefore, should be devalued accordingly in the eyes of the investors.
regards,
frog
I think that's a little weak.
Because a technology needs to be combined with something else to make it viable, in no way subtracts from it's standalone value.
Wheels, for example are useless without the accompanying vehicles that employ them. Nevertheless they provide a significant value to the owner of the vehicle technology. This value would translate into major renumeration if the wheel technology had to be obtained.
If the technology in question provides significant enhancement to DNAG technology, then that enhancement should translate into a value that would reflect that enhancement.
regards,
frog
While not wishing to interfere in Dr Frudaky's conversation, I do think that you are missing the point.
The essential question posed by the good Doctor was; Why did they sell their company and all of it's 'apparently' valuable assets for a mere $21,500.00?
I say 'apparently' based on the frenzy of applause generated by this board in regard to the acquisition.
The Doctor went on to propose that it could NOT have been a desire to obtain DNAG stock that was the motivation for their sale price as they could have just as easily obtained the same stock on the open market WITHOUT having to surrender their technology.
To rephrase the question then, how is the apparent disconect in value explained? Is the technology valuable? If so, how could it be obtained for less than the cost of a used car? Are the principles competent and capable? If so, why did they surrender their accomplishments for peanuts?
Hope this helps.
frog
Interesting?
Merck victorious in N.J.
Drugmaker found not liable in second trial over painkiller Vioxx.
November 3, 2005: 10:50 AM EST
By Aaron Smith, CNN/Money staff writer
VIOXX ON TRIAL
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Merck & Co. was found not liable by a New Jersey jury Thursday in the second lawsuit over its former blockbuster painkiller and arthritis drug Vioxx.
The jury found that Merck did not fail to warn consumers about the safety Vioxx, was not guilty of fraud, did not misrepresent the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx while marketing it to physicians, and did not conceal information about the drug.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/03/news/fortune500/merck_humeston/index.htm?cnn=yes
Pattrn,
it may be that the original patent has been par'd down to something more essential
Or less essential...one would expect the most essential portions would have been included in the original claims, which were denied.
I am not capable of recognizing what set's ADMIXMAP apart, except in the most general terms.
In specific terms, ADMIXMAP is a very small subset of the HAPMAP database that has been made public. There is nothing unique in the map, the patent attempts to constrain a specific application of the data it makes no claim on the data itself.
I'll chose to believe there is something there until/unless those in the scientific community indicates it is valueless, which todate they haven't.
I submit that they have clearly indicated it's lack of value. The scientific community accupies a slice of the economic strata that is toward the upper end of the middle class. They have disposable income and are a significant part of the investment community. It would not take more than a few of them to make a noticeable difference in the perception and pps of this stock. Please realize that as little as a few hundred thousand dollars would buy up a huge percentage of this company on the open market and such a level of interest would make the pps fly. The lack of any such interest screams out their opinion.
regards,
frog
C'mon loch3, before you get too smug and "I told you so" about this patent, realize that the naysayers were absolutely right about the 'Final Rejection".
The naysarers were dead wrong about "final rejection", huh?
In simple terms the original patent was denied (Final Rejection). A window of opportunity was allowed for a face saving rewrite (appeal) and a patent was allowed on that appeal. The original patent was STILL rejected.
Now, before you go dredging up the text of the patent to counter this argument, be advised that the 'patentable' portion of the text is limited to the 'claims'. The rest is just exposition. You will find that the original list of claims bears very little resemblance to the final 'approved' list of claims, even if the accompanying text remains essentially the same.
For instance, suppose you decided to patent the wheel. You would write an explanation of how the wheel would be a tremendous benefit to civilization and how it would advance the state of technology by leaps and bounds. You would also include a list of claims that might include such specifics as, tires, pulleys, bearings, rollers, valve handles, gears etc. Upon receiving a final rejection on such claims you would be permitted an appeal. You might advance a much more specific request for a patent on just the microscopic wheel used on the skateboard in a flea circus. If such a patent were then approved, you would get a published patent with all of the original explanation intact but just one enforcable claim.
The markets reaction to the patent awardc speaks for itself regarding the value of the awarded claims.
For reference sake, it has been reported many times here (truthfully) that 99% of awarded patents never return the costs of completing the patent process. Of the one percent that remains, and on which all dreams are being based, how many of those do you suppose suffered through a 'final rejection' from the patent office?
regards,
frog
Ahhh Geob...
That's what I said you'd say...
But alas .......
WE HAVE THE PATENT --- GEO
I offer the following for speculative consideration during these doldrums.
The latest news regarding the patent is more of a blow to the credibility of the 'pumping class' than it is a benefit.
While this may seem counter-intuitive, consider;
The interminable (but never completed) patent process offered a number of non-obvious benefits. It allowed for the presentation of conspiracy theories regarding big pharma and the patent office, "Big pharma will never let the patents be issued". It allowed for the 'promise' of thing to come, "Wait until we get the patents then things will soar". It offered a reason for the lack of interest in the technology, "No one will buy or license anything until the patents are issued".
So now that the first patent has been awarded, the decks have actually been cleared of a lot of misleading debris, most of it beneficial to the pumpers.
-There is obviously no conspiracy to prevent the patents from being awarded. (The first patent HAS been awarded, the rest are now as viable as the first.) ) We can remove that argument from the board.
-The actual value of the patent (as opposed to the imagined value) has been established.
-There are no longer any obstacles to a bidding war for the technology. It's value will soon be apparent, based on the flurry of suitors (or lack thereof).
All in all, a win for those who are seeking the truth and a loss for those who wish to blur reality to support their efforts.
regards,
frog
It's a slam dunk.
Pay the money get the patent.
regards,
frog
Notice of Allowance.
(a) If, on examination, it appears that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law, a notice of allowance will be sent to the applicant at the correspondence address indicated in § 1.33. The notice of allowance shall specify a sum constituting the issue fee which must be paid within three months from the date of mailing of the notice of allowance to avoid abandonment of the application. The sum specified in the notice of allowance may also include the publication fee, in which case the issue fee and publication fee (§ 1.211(e)) must both be paid within three months from the date of mailing of the notice of allowance to avoid abandonment of the application. This three-month period is not extendable.
Once will be enough!
I'm sure we all hope that you are at least half as capable as a broken watch.
regards,
frog
Are you expecting some benefit from the patent PR, or do you base your prediction on something else?
Realize that the patent info has been public knowledge for days, and there has been no reaction.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=8217525
regards,
frog
bag,
Then give up!
As long as people like you are satisfied to weigh the risk/benfit ratio of questionable drugs, personalized medicine will remain just someone's dream.
In this regard, everyone is like me. Whether the 'questionable' drug is aspirin for your headache and the side effect is the tummy ache you sometimes get, or whether the 'questionable' drug is penicillin for a life threatening infection and the side effect is a possible alergic reaction, everyone makes risk/benefit judgements.
There will never come a time when such judgements don't have to be made.
Personalized medicine will never replace such judgements. Personalized medicine will succeed however, when it provides a favorable outcome in such a judgement.
regards,
frog
Yeah right!
How about locking all the children up so that the risk of them getting run over is minimal, then we won't have to ask the risk benefit question.
Doh!
It's called personalized medicine, it's been here for some time now, but pharmas fail to take its advantage...
It's here?
Have you seen it demonstrated? Successfully?
Are pharmas working on their own versions? How do you know?
How many different types of personalized medicine have completed the FDA development process? How many have started?
I'm sure you have all this info, based on your authoritive statements.
regards,
frog
thetide,
I thought it best to gently turn the question into something rational rather than to point out the incredible stupidity in it's assumptions.
Evidently you wish to pursue that avenue.
Tell me would you buy a lottery ticket if you already knew who the winner was going to be?
No one knows which child will get struck by a car. We do know that some child will, probably today. If you knew it would be your child would you demand that cars be outlawed? Would you ever drive?
No one knows the names of the victims ahead of time, they just know the odds or the risks. And they know the potential benefits.
No one knows the future, all you get to do is consider the risks and weight the benefits. Even if you know a child will get run over today, somewhere, you nevertheless drive your car and try to be careful. You watch your children and try to protect them. It's always been about risk vs benefit and it will always be difficult to do.
But we do it every day. Only in retrospect, after the lottery has been won, after the child has died, after the pill has either helped or harmed, can you decide if you chose wisely.
regards,
frog
bag8ger,
How about....
Would you give a pill to your diabetic son or daughter that would extend his or her life even though there is a one in a thousand chance that the pill would kill him/her?
By the way have you ever had a flu shot?
Have you ever given one to your wife or kids?
Do you understand the odds of dying from that shot?
They're better than one in a thousand. Is it worth the risk?
Should flu shots be withdrawn based on the number of people who die from them every year?
regards,
frog
Pattrn, I think you have to have already made your mind up, if you can read into that report that ...
.. their money is influencing the FDA..
Give yourself a minute to step back from your own preconceptions and ponder the meaning of this wording..
"the need for careful assessment of risk versus benefit for all drugs, particularly those indicated for long-term, preventive therapy."
Consider the following;
In the realm of long term preventative care, how many people are going to die anyway, regardless of the therapy?
(hint: All of them)
In the same realm, how many of them will die from heart ailments and stroke?
Given these factors, if you are able to prolong the lives of millions of people with a particular therapy.....(here's the hard part)... How many deaths are acceptable?
Are you willing to let some die to benefit millions?
If not, are you willing to hold life extending therapies awayfrom millions and essentially let them die early in exchange for saving those who will also die early without the therapy? After all you can sooth your conscience with the knoiwledge that at least the therapy didn't kill them.
Now that you have resolved those questions, tell me again how the FDA is shirking it's responsibility in this case in exchange for money.
regards,
frog
Bag8ger, Let me get this straight....
You want to take my clothes off?
bag8ger, As usual you read what you want to read in my posts regardless of the actual content.
I did not say that such conspiracies did not exist, I said that there needed to be a more responsible examination of those possibilities before one granted them the status of 'belief'.
You have also mischaracterized the current political situation as one that counters my argument, when in fact it supports it completely. I offered the lack of whistleblowers as an argument that there may not be a conspiracy, you counter with the WMD situation that was inundated with whistleblowers from the very beginning.
In closing, 'obscene profits' was a buzz phrase from Frudakis in regard specifically to Statnome. Since DNAP has essentially abandoned the program and since there has never been a business case made for such a product, I think we can safely remove the phrase from the lexicon and consider not using it in rational arguments any more.
regards,
frog
Pattrn,
I don't think it is 'grasping' really. Everyone want answers when things don't go their way. It is human nature.
I think, however, that we owe ot to ourselves to think things through before we give such ruminations the status of 'belief'.
The easiest thing in the world is to create an imaginary 'them' to blame things on. It is easy to use 'them' as the reason for all of the pitfalls that have occured.
Unfortunately we never attempt to flesh out these concepts. Try to work out the details and consider the depth and breadth that such a conspiracy would require.
How many people need to be in the loop on such an effort? How can they all be kept quiet? How does such an on-going effort transcend such obstacles as changes in personel at the various agencies, changes in administrations, the objections of the hundreds of scientists who are aware of both the technology and the specific issues involved? How are all of these people constrained (given their insider-like access) from investing a little on the side in a viable technology and souring the plan?
Why, in all of the people that must be involved, is there mot one disgruntled whistle blower looking for a little revenge? Don't you think he'd be famous for exposing such a plot? Don't you think he knows that? The book deal alone would be worth millions. lol.
We owe it to ourselves to think these things through because if they are not true then we are poisoning our outlook of an industry in an effort to salve our own conscience. If it is true then we owe it to ourselves to understand it completely in order to avoid similar efforts in the future.
regards,
frog
Pattrn, Do you have anything to back this up, or is it just a part of the imagined conspiracy?
....and was relying on the Patent Office to step up and do the right thing in a timely manor. Big mistake on my part, as it seems they are pressured by big business in ways that we aren't aware of....
What has the patent office done (or not done) that supports this hypothesis? I don't see that they have done anything wrong at all. They have done everything in a timely manner. Every patent takes years to process. The fact that it takes longer to complete the process for a rejection than it does for an approval just means that they are very careful to give every individual patent every possible chance to succeed.
Would you have been happier if the rejections had come back in six months?
Or are you suggesting that your own review of the science and understanding of the technology assures you that the patents not only were viable but were also suppressed by outside forces?
If that is the case, would you be so kind as to present your reasoning here? I'm sure there are many here that would appreciate the explanation.
Thanks,
frog
geob, Just out of idle curiousity, how would you ever know?
I've been "had" when ......
The doors are locked .....
For starters, the doors will never 'lock' as there are at least three other businesses being run out of the same office. As long as one of them stays open the doors will not lock.
Their failure to answer the phone (If they ever abandoned ship) would be no indication, as they don't answer the phone now.
The lack of progress would be no indication as the only indications of progress that we get now are made up by cosmiclifeform and he's going to keep doing that anyway.
As long as they file an SEC report a few times a year (Hardly a full time job)investors will still be able to trade the shares. As long as the shares trade and there is activity, the company can continue to sell new shares into the market. So you really have NO way of knowing when you have been had. (If ever.) As long as you participate in the game it will continue. You won't be 'had' essentially till you realize that you've been had. lol
The investors here have become so resigned to a level of progress that is essentially non-existant, that it will be almost impossible to detect when things have actually ended.
If it weren't for the occasional fluff PR to indicate that the company still has a heartbeat, we could easily assume from the evidence that the company gave up months ago.
So...the question remains, how will we ever know?
The big winds out of the frozen tundra seem to be shifting.....
bag, Perhaps...
However, given your always entertaining interpretations of the written language, (i.e. Yesterday's inadvertent validation of my statements during your unsuccesful attempt to counter them.)I would be ever so grateful for your explanation of what I missed.
TIA
frog
Is this serious?
An invitation for financial institutions to come to a meeting that is posted on a web site as a press release?
Questions;
Who is the intended audience?
The financial institutes?
Wouldn't you contact them directly and try to maintain some professional decorum to shield the contact from the public?
Doesn't Gabriel and his cadre usually play things 'close to the vest', and doesn't this seem to be out of character?
Perhaps the intended audience is someone else.
Perhaps it is just another in a long history of red herrings.
A periodic puff up the skirt for those who are hanging on.
Given the route that this information took as it made it's way to the boards and the role call of those who are touting it, it does seem to have that smell.
regards,
frog
it'sgoodtoseeyoubackMike...
Bag8ger, Wrong as usual.
Police with all the facts don't need 'motive' to make a case.
They only resort to the Motive, Opportunity and Method, (MOM) mantra when they 'don't' have all the facts and are trying to construct a circumstantial case.
OT: thetide,
I didn't say motives aren't important. I said they are separate from facts. They can certainly be used as a method of weighing the various opinions but they are not necessary to the acceptance of facts.
Two extreme examples;
The wishbone/hopeful/slopster transgenic multialias has been spamming these boards for years with exacly the same repetitious nonsense. On the other hand it has recently suffered a reversal of viewpoint vis a vis the future of the company. Do you think the factual basis of it's information has undergone the same 180 or is it equally as valuable as it was before?
Second and even more extreme, lol. While you have no way of assessing what motivates the eight foot tall fire breathing cyclops. Be it self doubt, poor potty training, lack of self esteem or some problems with his daddy. When he comes after you swinging a club, do you take him seriously?
I would also suggest that I am not shadowy. I am in fact one of the more substantial posters on this board. I would venture to guess that you know more about me, than almost anyone else on the board. The main problem you have with me is not that you can't take me seriously until you understand my motivations, it is that you already take me seriously but you can't fit me into any of your preconceived pigeonholes.
best regards,
frog
thetide,
I am trying to understand your statement;
It’s difficult to take someone seriously...if one cannot identify a cat’s motivation.
I am trying to get some understanding of why it is necessary to identify motivations in order to process a source's information 'seriously'.
Surely facts are facts wherever they come from. Surely information both frivolous and profound comes from an entire spectrum of sources.
How do you expect to ever obtain a 'big picture' understanding if you restrict the information you process because you need to understand the motives of the source before you process it?
Such a concept baffles me.
regards,
frog
Nice try Dr Dew but no cigar.
You implied that Nitya and I were the same person based on the 'similarity' of the posts we made.
However, I was talking about a 'generic' naked shorter and named no one, Nitya was talking specifically about Geob and a completely different topic.
YOU, made a connection between the two posts. No one else.
Squirm away.
thetide, Pretty close.
You still have some built in assumptions that are not accurate,(psst, I have exactly the same motive that you do), but it is not worth beating to death.
Now that we have run that topic into the ground, I would like to beg an indulgence. Perhaps you will now satisfy a curiosity on my part.
How do you, as an intelligent and and educated observer of the human condition, justify the passing of factual information through emotional filters before you consider it valid?
If a heinous mass murderer tells you that the sky is blue, but an innocent and beautiful child tells you it is lime green, do you recalibrate your own understanding of such things as 'sky' and 'color' because of the backgrounds and motives of the sources?
An absurd example perhaps, but I hope you see where it is going. Why should the acceptance or rejection of facts be based upon the motives of the source? Opinions yes, of course, but not facts. I suppose you can rationalize your position by suggesting that it's 'all' opinion, but you know that you can't really justify that. There are hundreds of facts that remain facts regardless of who provides them.
One of the most interesting things that I have learned from my participation on these boards is the ability of so many people to live in their own world, completely isolated from reality by their incredible ability to filter that reality into only what they wish to see, hear or believe.
best regards,
frog
worktoplay, I'm sorry but I can't offer much help. I have never been into the patent process that deep.
I have searched the uspto site but I can't find anything concrete.
'Advisory actions' seem to provide no implicit information good or bad but are a generic form for transfering information.
I would guess that there are a limited number of options for a response from the patent office to an appeal for a final rejection. I don't suppose that there is the possibility of a continuous sequence of final rejections and appeals. Therefore one might expect either a positive response in the form of a granted patent, a negative response - appeal denied, or something neutral like a request for clarification of some part of the appeal. I would guess that anything other than the granting of the patent could be contained in an 'advisory action'.
Just my two cents, and worth about as much as you paid for it.
regards,
frog
Dr Dew, Of course you can.
And for a stand up fellow like yourself, I'm sure there will be many more.
BTW, since you have chosen not to deny the question posed to you in the last post, can we take that as an affirmative?
To refresh your memory, it was after all 'hours' ago, you implied that Goeb was a multi-alias naked shorter. Based on your obvious familiarity with him (being one of his other aliases, lol)that information carries significant weight.
Can we assume that since you have tried to divert attention from your faux pas, that you are not denying it?
regards,
frog
thetide,
Nope....that ain't it either!
Dr Dew,
I think you have put your foot in it ...again.
My post was about the subject of naked shorting and the people who practice it. I mentioned no names whatsoever.
Nitya's post on the RB board was specifically about Geob, who Nitya imagined behaved like an insider.
I find it incredibly interesting that you (of all people lol) would make a connection between such divergent concepts and in fact link them together so tightly that you would make the absurd accusation that Nitya and I are the same person.
Can we take it as a given, therefore, that you think (know) that Geob is in fact a naked shorter and that he is also an insider?
I look forward to your response....assuming there is one.
By the way, Nitya and I have been accused of being the same person before. You are not the first. Usually it is by someone with the IQ of a doorknob who is intimdated by intellect and to whom 'all them smart people look alike'. lol
If you investigate just a little you will see that Nitya is much more intelligent than I and at least an order of magnitude more polite.
regards,
frog
Miss Scarlet, It may explain why I can't seem to get a raise...
Is anyone else here bored?
As an exercise in ennui relief, lets talk about naked shorting.
It is an activity that has been blamed for many of the tribulations of DNAG but has seldom had any supporting evidence. I think possibly things may have changed recently.
Consider the process of naked shorting. A 'seller' sells a number of shares to the market. Shares he doesn't actually have. After a period of time during which the stock price drops, the seller buys an equivalent number of shares, covers his sale and pockets the profit. All pretty simple, so far.
It is assumed by these boards that 'shorters' have a vested interest (lol Jbear) in driving the price down in order to protect their sale. Obviously if the price goes up they will lose money if they have to cover their sale after the price has risen.
This is where it gets interesting. Consider the possibility (only the 'possibility') that naked shorters do not necessarily want the price to fall immediately. Maybe it's not who you think it is. Sounds crazy doesn't it? Well bear with me.
Since the R/S occurred and the One billion share OS was transformed into about 60 Million shares, there has been continuous dilution. Dilution that we were told would happen, so no surprise. The trend since then has been continuously down, although there have been a couple of bumbs in the graph. Also since that time we have taken up a membership on the SHO list. One of the indicators that shorting may be taking place.
In the past couple of months shares have been added to the OS at a rate that has been unprecedented until now. We are currently showing an OS around 150 Million shares. The equivalent of 3 Billion shares pre-split. That’s over 2 Billion pre-split shares added to the OS in just a few months. There are still 1.35 Billion shares left that are available in the AS, the equivalent of 27 Billion pre-split shares. While there is no indication that they will all be used, they are nevertheless available. Given the continuation of the dilution as a necessary source of funds, it is no leap of faith to assume that the downward pressure on the pps will continue.
Given these conditions, consider the possible strategies of the shorter. His profit depends on the difference between the price he sells at (obviously the higher the better) and the price he buys back in (lower is better). He therefore has two options to maximize his profit. He can follow the tried and true methods of selling his 'naked' shares and then bashing until the inevitable price decline grants him a favorable profit. Or, and this is the part that might seem counter-intuitive, if he 'knows' that the price will inevitably fall regardless of his help due to the overwhelming pressure of the dilution, he can play it from the other end. He can exhort everyone to hold their shares and buy the deals, realizing that holding the pps up as long as possible while he sells into it, will provide a much better yield than he would get if he bashes the stock down. He knows that the price will decline no matter what tactics he employs, but he can get a better sale price if he can convince others to support his 'sale' price for as long as he can.
What do you think….possible?
Such a person would probably have a couple of aliases and would most likely reside in a country where naked shorting is legal, say Canada. He and his aliases would have shown up in the last few months and would have already posted hundreds of messages in support of the buy and hold strategy. Some of the aliases might have announced that news was coming over and over, in order to try to maintain interest. Such participation would have coincided with the entry of DNAG on the SHO list.
I wonder if there are any posters on this board who fit that description?
Too bad we can't use DNAWitness to track them down, (if they exist). LOL
Anybody got any thoughts?
Regards,
frog
thetide, I'm never sure if you are serious.
At times it seems that you miss the point on purpose, perhaps as bait to elicit another response. It seems improbable that someone with your obvious intelligence could miss so many.
Your sophistry regarding Chucky notwithstanding, I challenge your accusation;
Who do you defend yourself against...when it is typically you who initiates the jabs?
If a lie is told that distorts the shared reality, is the response to the lie really the initiation of the conflict? Or is it the defence ?
If you have not 'got' my motivation by now, after I have laid it out for all to see countless times, then it is because you choose to ignore what I have told you. Under such circumstances it seems a waste of time to continue the discussion.
I specifically explained my 'vested' interest in participating here. I explained it in such terms that you even chose to repeat them back to me in a complimentary fashion, yet you STILL ask me what they are. I am at a loss how to move forward.
regards,
frog
Put these two together.
You ask why I jab and I talk about swift and savage defense.
Is that hard to follow?
You ask why someone is here without a vested interest and I suggest there are more vested interests than you have considered.
Is that a difficult concept?
You judge me in that you do not press others for these answers, you just want to know what MY motives are.
Do you get it?
There are no contradictions...just a failure to comprehend.
Yeah....we're done.
Geeez,
Commercial in the sense of monetary gain.
Have I considered all the vested interests? Of course not, neither am I conceited enough to suggest that I have.
I am NOT more qualified than you and vice versa. I don't judge you. You on the other hand seem intent on judging me.
Good Luck with that.
So you find you glean your most viable truths by jabbing at cats on the DNAG board?
I didn't say that, and you obviously didn't read what I said or you wouldn't have suggested such nonsense.
Are we done yet? Or are we going to have to go round and round this subject forever?