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.
Cosmic,
Thank you for your reasoned response. Unfortunately your explanation is based on the same mythic understanding of the stock market as bag8ger enjoys.
The little bumps and flurries that the daytraders exploit are the 'noise' signal that lays on top of the actual value of the companies stock. The 'noise' is usually the result of the emotional reactions of the 'long' investors to some inconsequential PR put out by the company in order to invoke just such a reaction. It is ironically amusing that the 'hated' daytraders would have nowhere to play if the 'longs' weren't quite so gullible.
The actual value of the pps may be subject to minor excursions in level driven by the instantaneous intensity of the longs emotion but it's underlying level is an 'exact' representation of the value of the company.
It is humorous to watch the players try to suggest that a company whose single source of income is the printing of shares to sell at a discount to the current pps, is not directly connected to that pps. Why the entire existence and continuance of the company is based solely on that pps. The fact that the capitalized value of the company is dropping in almost a direct relationship to the amount of money that is extracted from the sale of the shares should make the relationship obvious.
The VALUE of the company is DEFINED by the number of shares outstanding, multiplied by the pps. This is not a theory, it is a fact. That value is established by the market, not the wishes of the investors. It is supported by the industry, who well know the value of the company AND it's assets. Any theories that attempt to circumvent these facts are simply pipedreams.
regards,
frog
Ifida,
Not that I don't appreciate your valuable input, even when it is TOTALLY off topic, but the subject at hand is the premise that DNAP 'company' is totally unrelated and isolated from DNAP 'pps'.
Do you have any wisdom to offer in support of this concept, or perhaps you would like to chime in and support my contention that it is nonsensical?
regards,
frog
Bag8ger,
Unfortunately for all the rest of us, the distinction resides exclusively in your imagination.
"You keep mistaking DNAP/pps with DNAP/company."
Since, for everyone without benefit of your own individual version of reality, the two entities are indistinguishable from each other, the 'mistake' is inevitable.
regards,
frog
It is the latest reincarnation of money_looser and stockpimpdaddy.
mingwan0, And the 'logical inference' is...?
They are either lying through their teeth, or they have something else up their sleeve....lets give them the benefit of the doubt [for the umpteenth time].
I think it is quite telling, how each successive spike inducing PR has less and less of an effect and the pps recovers to it's previous value faster each time as the investors become more and more weary of the repetitive nature of the game.
mingwan0, I'll stand in the corner, if you will explain the math to the good folks on this board.
DNAP has 'promised' to buy $25 million dollars worth of Biofrontera. They will use money that they get for the sale of their unreleased stock. The transaction will begin as soon as they register the stock.
Here's my problem. The current capitalized value of DNAP [750 Million shares at (generously) 2 cents apiece] is about $15 million dollars. If they release every share they have left, [another 750 million shares] that $15 million will be diluted 50% and each share will be worth a penny. So at face value (not including the inevitable discount to the VC company) the sum total of releasable shares is worth at most $7.5 million dollars.
So explain how DNAP is going to obtain $25 million dollars in exchange for $7.5 million worth of shares. If they can't then the deal CANNOT occur as reported, and the PR is nothing but the latest in a long line of misrepresentations that goes back to the incestuous GMED 'deal'.
Anxiously waiting your response, [in the corner]
regards,
frog
Wouldn't be the first time.
So what research is being 'wrapped up'?
As in; "But it intends to wrap up its research"
Outside of the Ancestry/DNAWitness stuff, all it does is research.
Oh really?
"DNAPrint said it will continue selling its ancestry tests, called DNAWitness when marketed to the forensics market and ANCESTRYbyDNA2.5 when sold to the public.
But it intends to wrap up its research and market diagnostic tests for determining what existing drugs work the best for certain patients."
Is that the end of Ovanome and Statnome?
"You obviously don't understand the patent process."
Yeah..obviously.
Churning?
Care to tell us who that might be?
As far as I can see the patent applications haven't moved an inch in years.
twelks,
I am implying no such impropriety. The patent applications in question are public knowledge, having been published by the patent office.
If the genomic industry perceived that there was value in the intellectual property contained in the patents, there would be potential bidders within the industry for that property. The market, in it's infinite wisdom, upon becoming aware of that interest would immediately set a value on that property and reflect an estimate of that value in the pps.
It is how the market has behaved since day one. While it may be possible for a single company to keep a negotiation quiet for a limited period of time (almost never happens), if there were more than one company interested it would be known instantly. To suggest that the technology of the company is both groundbreaking but limited to only one interested party is a stretch that can only be presented as a rationalization for the present state of morbidity.
regards,
frog
regards,
frog
Cosmic,
DNAP's market strategy (assuming that one exists)is totally irrelevant to what I have said.
If there was legitimate interest in the patents among the potential bidders, DNAP's position on the subject would be immaterial. The market would be aware of the interest and the stock price would reflect it.
As the secrets of the genome emerge and the historical changes that have shaped us into the beings that we are today are mapped and understood, the sum total of that understanding will be staggering. Any shortcut or technique that aids in the unlocking of those secrets will have a profound value. Every step in the evolutionary chain, every variation in the individual genome shares an ancestral link in our heritage. To some degree every minute variation in every individuals genome is by definition an 'Ancestry Indicator'. They will all have value in helping to understand the biological machine. All research in this field has the potential for 'value', scientific, cultural, medical etc.
To expect it all to have economic value, however, at this point requires a leap of faith. It is not supported by any reasonable evidence.
regards,
frog
BTW. FINITE is an interesting term. Three billion, for example, is a finite amount. lol
cosmic,
The patent applications have been in the process for YEARS.
Said process includes a review by knowledgable peers.
Said process also includes the public disemmination of the patent application, for all interested parties to review.
Is it your contention that given these conditions, and the intense competitive nature of the industry, that no potentially interested party is aware of DNAP's accomplishments?
Is it also your contention that in this same competitive environment, a potentially valuable and marketable property could fly under the radar and NOT create even a hint of a bidding war?
Do you imagine that even a hint of a bidding war would not immediately be reflected in the price and volume of the shares traded?
How about if you do a little DD yourself and see if you can come up with any mechanism that would allow for such an unlikely set of events to play out without showing up on the very sensitive screens of the market radar?
Tell me all about the FINITE number of markers and their relationship to the MAJOR markers. Only tell it in such a way that it is not just a facet of your own personal opinion.
The value of the AIM's to research scientists is not in any way comparable to the value of those same markers and derivatives of same to the economic community. 'Value' having completely different metrics in the divergent arenas.
regards,
frog
bag8ger,
"I doubt any large company will put a signatures to agreements until patents have been issued."
Why?
Once an application is submitted the idea is protected. The patent, once issued, applies retroactively to the date of submission. If a patent application has value there is no reason to wait for the award of the patent to begin to exploit the intellectual property. The sooner you get started in developing the ideas, the sooner you reap the economic benefit.
There is absolutely no advantage in waiting for a patent award if an idea is considered valuable and patentable. Large, successful companies are more than capable of assessing the value, as well as the patentability of these concepts.
The only reason someone would wait would be if they thought the application had little chance of being granted and they were just waiting for confirmation of their assumption.
Even then they could buy up the idea and negotiate a license that was conditional on the eventual patent approval. Products could be developed and distributed and the license fee would vary based on the outcome of the patent process. An advance fee paid up front and a retroactive increase held in escrow and paid when the patent is finally issued.
Waiting for the patent process to conclude before proceeding with marketable resources is a fools game. Unawarded patents only have significant value in the imagination of uninformed dreamers. There are no conceivable reasons to wait for an unknown number of years before proceeding with cutting edge technologies. (If they exist)
regards,
frog
Let's dissect this statement.
"The first to identify a disease causing or drug response gene variant owns it, and each variant connection can only be discovered once. Once discovered and patented, the new owner controls their use in the therapeutic and diagnostic markets..."
There are two classifications of gene variants mentioned, 'disease causing' and 'drug response'. These are two completely different concepts. A disease causing gene variant is a gene variation that is specific to the disease it causes and has a direct one to one 'cause and effect' connection. A drug response gene variant, on the other hand, is a marker that occurs in a statistical population of patients with a specific response to a prescribed drug. It is NOT specific and may be one of hundreds of such markers related to the specific drug response under investigation.
To date DNAP has concentrated on the second variant. While it is quite true that a patent for a gene variant and it's connection becomes the property of the patents owner, who then controls it's use in subsequent applications, it is also true that such control only has value if the variant to condition connection is exclusive (as in the disease causing variant). In the second type of variant (drug response) it is almost guaranteed that there are multiple markers for each drug response. So while a patent on a specific marker will indeed become the property of DNAP, as long as there are others to choose from, the patent will have minimal value.
"It's the patents, baby!"
Perhaps, but the lack of interest, by the market in the applied for patents, would seem to indicate otherwise.
regards,
frog
Slopster, On behalf of all 'the rest of us', may I offer my heartfelt thanks!
Given our experience with the quality of the information that we have seen in the past, I'm sure there are many here that are very greatful for your present restraint.
regards,
frog
mingwan0, Unfortunate that we can't seem to find a local who is willing to perform that service for the board.
With all of the effort that goes into searching out the most tangential minutiae related to the company, it is ironic that such readily available and directly relevant information is avoided like the plague.
One can't help but wonder if the information 'has' been perused by one of our stalwart colleagues ...but since it provides information that runs counter to the philosophy of the investigator, it has been supressed.
ya think?........naaaah!.
Bag,
Swallowed it, ...hook ...line...sinker.....................................and BOAT!
LOLOL!
It's fishing season around this part of the world. I'm going out tomorrow for the first time. Just thought I'd get a little practice with an old tried and true lure.
Never fails.....got three nice sized ones...LOL
bag,
Fair enough. Just idle speculation that came out sounding like established fact.
I have no idea what any of the secondary considerations were that drove DNAP to their litigation. The prime motive however was obviously to get him off the RB board as quickly as possible. His knowledge of the sordid details in regards to the compensation packages together with his dismay at the betrayal he felt for being left out, made him a dangerous voice talking to investors. He needed to be silenced quickly.
Bag,
Where did that fantasy come from?
"Information he was trying to pass to someone else...." HUH?
All I ever heard, was that in order to stop him from posting on the RB board, DNAP got an injunction and seized his computer. Claiming that it was bound to contain proprietary information. (A safe bet by the way for any professional who takes his work home with him).
Do you have a reference for this claim?
mingwan0,
---
BTW, which side do you think made the motion to withdraw (which was subsequently denied)?
---
As you know any such speculation would be fairly tenuous and undoubtedly biased but I will offer an opinion anyway.
As I understand it, the original case was brought against Kondragunta by DNAP. Kondragunta later filed a counter claim against the company. While Kondragunta could not ask to be allowed to withdraw from the original side of the case he could ask to be allowed to withdraw the counter claim. If he has asked to withdraw the countersuit, one that he has instigated, it would seem to be an uncontested move that would be approved immediately. On the other hand if DNAP asked to be allowed to withdraw it's original claim, the existence of the countersuit could potentially preclude such an action and explain the denial.
It would seem more likely therefore, that DNAP has asked to be allowed to withdraw but been denied.
mingwan0, Someone sure is!
It's hard to believe that it could have gone on this long if it was a slam dunk case. [for either side].
Mr. Kondragunta seems to have persuaded some members of the legal proffesion that he has a case with a potential windfall at the end of it. Such a legal effort would exceed his capabilities if it were not undertaken on a contingency basis.
OT: twelks, lol
Sorry, you're asking the wrong guy. I only pretend to be an intellectual, I unfortunately lack the infrastructure or the patience to pull it off successfully.
regards,
frog
bag8ger,
There is nothing 'savvy' about it. It is simple supply and demand. The ONLY way to lower the pps is to offer less than the asking price. It is the ONLY way.
Conversely the ONLY way to increase the pps of a stock is to buy all the shares offered at the asking price and thereby forcing the price higher.
It makes NO DIFFERENCE who is doing the offering. Savvy trader or misguided supporter. The price is driven down by people not willing to pay the asking price. It is the ONLY effect at work here.
retired investor,
This board and many others like it are replete with investors who believe that by buying the stock of a company they are supporting the efforts of the company and, in fact, playing a role in the eventual success of that company.
No matter how many times they are told that they bought the shares from other investors, they seem to feel that the company somehow benefits from their involvement.
Some of those who understand the relationship still feel that by buying the shares they at least contributed to the support of the share price. Unfortunately they fail to take into account the fact that most of them bought their shares with bids set at lower than the asking price at the time of their purchase, so, to some degree, they were responsible for a decline in the value of the pps on the completion of the transaction.
I find it ironic that many of the most vocal supporters are quite happy to report that they are about to 'load up the truck' and have a bid in at some value less than the current bid/ask spread. When the market makers 'see' all of these bids below the present spread, and subsequently move the bid and ask down to that range to 'make the market' where all the potential activity is, they are reviled by the faithful for manipulating the pps, but no one ever faults the 'truck loaders', who are supposed to be supporting the company but are instead contributing to it's decline.
regards,
frog
I just hope it wasn't his wife who did the math....
Call the police. lol Ifida will be happy to give you my real name and address.
Good luck,
frog
Your paranoia is getting the better of you.
Put your mind at ease, if anyone was trying to crack into your computer it was an amateur and not one of US.
We here at the collective employ much more subtle methods.
I'll bet, for instance, that no one noticed the trojan worm encoded in the picture of Carrie taken at the recent SH meeting and posted on the DD page.
No, no don't worry, it has already done it's work and deleted itself..there should be no noticeable after effects. We have our ethics after all.
regards,
seven of five.
worktoplay, Does the Option specify licensing?
I was under the impression that it pertained to exclusive rights and was a right of first refusal to actually own the product outright.
Obviously if DNAP doesn't offer the product then no one can exercise the option. On the other hand if they never offer a product, then the option will always be in play. Do you think DNAP is going to commercialize every product in house?
The concensus opinion a few years ago suggested that DNAP would use Retinome to force the option issue so that when Statnome was ready, the option would be out of the picture.
It will be interesting to see how the strategy plays out now.
regards,
frog
bag8ger, I don't know, I've never done it. The only experience I have is when a patent was issued in total without any deletions we resubmitted it with additional claims and received a second patent on the same subject.
It is common practice to expand the number of claims within a patent to stake out as much IP ground as possible. It is left to the patent office to pare the granted claims down to establish the actual delineation of the granted IP. If a patent is returned with no deletions it is assumed that the original claims were not expansive enough and so an ammended set of claims is introduced in order to search out the limits of the granted real estate.
Remember it is the claims listed in the approved patent that specify the actual IP being granted. The front pages of background and exposition are just building the groundwork for the claims and are not really a part of the granted protection.
chig,
To start with Microsoft does not patent their software and are free to upgrade it anytime they want. The actual code is protected by copyright law but that is a different animal altogether.
No one is assuming anything good or bad, on the other hand if one wishes to speculate on the various possibilities it is only prudent to include both sides.
No one knows whether the core patent application is or isn't applicable. We don't yet know if it is, in fact, even patentable.
I was merely suggesting that if one wishes to speculate that the changes that have occured over time can influence one aspect of the technology, then it is not out of line to suggest that those same changes may have repercusions in another aspect.
And as for me 'obviously' knowing what I'm talking about... I don't know what I could have said to give you that idea..
regards,
frog
Considering the delay and the obvious rework, it is likely that information they developed in the interim was involved in the final version. It is conceivable that this will impact the option although it will probably take litigation to resolve it.
Additionally, while this may impact the option agreement it may also impact the patent application. If the final version employs techniques not covered in the original application then those techniques will not be covered. Also, those techniques and disclosures listed in the application that turned out to be ineffective (requiring the rework), even if they are granted, will be irrelevant.
What are the ramifications of the Retinome announcement in regard to one of the historical topics of DNAP? Specifically the option agreement.
The option was granted to Orchid some years ago in exchange for some consideration (cash, machinery, I'm don't remember). It allowed Orchid to have the exclusive rights to DNAP's first product developed entirely in house. The option was for a period of six months after the presentation of the completed product.
Since that time the option has been reported to be tranfered from Orchid to Beckham. It has been suggested that the option period has run out, although no products have been introduced. (Ancestry and DNAWitness are exempt due to the outside collaboration of Dr Shriver).
Retinome was the expected 'first product' and although it has arrived considerably later than first envisioned it is still the 'first'.
DNAP has evidently combined Retinome into the DNAWitness suite of products for the benefit of marketing, but it is a stand alone product that has many applications outside of the forensic space.
Does Beckham still have the option?
The option allows them to match any offer from a second party, will this help to establish a 'value' for the product?
Will DNAP be limited to the forensic world in order to market it themselves and to prevent such a matching offer?
Is Beckham even interested?
Many questions..
regards,
frog
What...and miss all my friends?
ifida buddy...I like it here, specially now that mingwan0 plays fair. It's getting to be a very good place for open and honest dialog.
What's the matter, are you finding honest dialog uncomfortable?
mingwan0,
Which one of the TOS rules can be construed as a license to 'police' disruption?
Furthermore, 'Disruption' is one of those very subjective calls that it often in the 'eye of the beholder'.
Tread carefully here, you can undo a lot of good work with a mistake at this junction. No one has violated a TOS rule and mindless ad naseum repetition of a particular point has been practiced and sanctioned on this board for some time. The only difference here is the 'leaning' of the subject.
Whether it is valid or not is irrelevant, it should NOT be restricted.
USGrant, no need to apologize, I'm pleased with the progress.
As long as the promised products are still in the 'development' stage they fuel the imagination of the greedy and their potential is pushed to hyperbolistic heights. (I just made that word up) It is only when the products actually enter the market that their real world value can be established.
The shoe has now dropped for Retinome and it won't be long before we'll see who among us was correct in our valuations.
How are we doing so far? You think we're going to gap up in the AM? You thinking of adding to your position?
regards,
frog
ming, We need to remember that the patent application predates the latest refinements in Retinome by a large number of months. In fact the application goes back to the timeframe of your previous reference in which DNAP still believed that they would get 99% accuracy.
As you have pointed out the delays in the introduction as well as the restatement of accuracy numbers point to significant and unexpected obstacles in the development process. It would not surprise me if some of the specific assumptions in the patent application warranted some level of adjustment.
There seem to be a couple more qualifiers;
The most recent blind validation test for 65 individuals of predominant (>80%) European ancestry, between the ages of 10 and 60 years, showed greater than 97% accuracy.
"The test is appropriate for samples that have typed with the Company's DNAWitness(TM) 2.5 test to be of predominant European continental ancestry, and was blindly validated strictly for individuals of both sexes between the ages of 10 and 60 years."
Now not only can we tell the genetic profile of the crime scene DNA, but we can also describe the eye color if their DNA genetic results fall into the correct category.
It is fairly obvious that most variations in eye color occur in those with predominantly European ancestry so the test has value, but it is interesting to note that the markers for eyecolor do not seem to be tracking across all of the ancestral types. It would seem that they have not yet found the actual eyecolor genes but have found ancestral patterns in the snp's that correlate effectively with eyecolor but don't have a one to one direct link.