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.
For the most part, agreed sol. This is a high-risk, "bleeding edge" type of play. Competition is a considerable concern. Due Diligence is a must. On the bright side we seem to be seeing growing interest, if not acceptance in various industries by knowledgeable folk, but a divergence between science and marketability is appropriately cause for caution.
GLTA
In Pascuense: hakamaroo (hah-kah-mahr-OH-oh)
I'm not sure of the context Mike but I couldn't help myself...
Pig in a Poke?
As in bought without the buyer knowing its true nature or value? That's APDN's raison d'etre.
Far as I can tell no other forum has gone further than this one in reaching out to and benefiting (in understanding if not financial) from subject matter experts, knowledgeable folks, of all persuasions. Bias is pervasive in our species, at the moment I'm more interested in what a couple of Docs from George Washington University have to say.
Most obvious and potentially best solution must originate with the IP rights holders/manufacturers, from the beginning.
Thanks RK.
The report recommends countermeasures to protect companies from malicious insiders based on a layered, risk-defense framework. We have suites of tools available, and not only for the "chip" but throughout their physical and cyber eco-systems. Hope to find the specifics some day. Exactly who, what, where, and when?
My thoughts too, although when it comes to 'Malicious insiders' any solution, even forensic tagging, could be vulnerable. However, it does seem additional security enhancements, like ours, could help.
Never thought this was much of a threat, wonder what Dan Deisz could add...
No, just showing my age. .06 more like it...
Okay, so the USDA is rightly, first focused on testing and inspection...
"..grading, auditing, certification and inspection services ensure the quality of domestic products - helping American farms and businesses export goods to over 100 different countries."
Their initiatives, however, fall short... the dreaded chain of custody is ignored. In order to gain (as they believe they have) "worldwide recognition of the integrity of the USDA organic (Et Al.) seal and build market opportunities for U.S. producers and handlers." they need to look further. What happens then Mr. USDA? How about some traceable, forensically backed element, in or on their "Seal"? That would provide tremendous validation, not to mention data never thought possible before. Just my two cents.
"The Missouri Department of Agriculture and Missouri farmers and ranchers recognize that consumers want to know more about where their food comes from and how it’s produced. Consumers are agriculture’s most important stakeholder, and consumer confidence in Missouri’s agricultural products and the source of those products is vital. ASAP will better communicate, recognize and promote the good stewardship and sustainability that Missouri producers continue to practice and improve upon." and "If your application is approved, the Missouri Department of Agriculture will provide your farm with ASAP signage and other promotional materials."
https://asap.farm/
It'll take more than signage and promotional materials for them and others to get that job done right.
Of related interest:
https://www.ams.usda.gov/reports/ams-2016-achievement-report
"(A) key defense panel has proposed spending $430 billion more on defense over the next five years. Sen. John McCain, a Republican from Arizona and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, included the figure in a white paper he released on Tuesday...The white paper reads looks like a budgetary blueprint for Trump and his incoming administration."
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/pt/2017/01/mccain-pitches-430-billion-increase-in-u-s-defense-spending-over-next-five-years.html
"Restoring America Power", fits nicely with "Make America Great Again", but "Providing a nuclear capable variant of the F-35", really Senator McCain?
http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/25bff0ec-481e-466a-843f-68ba5619e6d8/restoring-american-power-7.pdf
Just imagine the opportunities such "High-Risk" developments portend for the DoD's risk based approach to safety precautions, and yes, APDN.
Happy Inaugural All!
Full Disclosure..."Molecular beacons: probes that fluoresce upon hybridization", have been used and discussed for over 20 years. I must admit it's beyond my understanding, and just how we distinguish our Pending Patent application is a bit of a mystery, although historically its use appears more common within the Medical Community.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9630890
Some Labino UVG 365nm lights and an introduction to our Patent Pending Beacon™ Technology could go a long way...
Now here's a twist APDN should look at.
Donations of Technology and Support Services To Enforce Intellectual Property Rights
A Proposed Rule by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Treasury Department on 01/17/2017
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/17/2017-00653/donations-of-technology-and-support-services-to-enforce-intellectual-property-rights
It appears that, for the sake of argument, donated portions of our technology, say taggant readers for example, to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; and/or the Department of the Treasury, could be a wise investment if indeed it were to encourage rights holders to incorporate our solutions into their products. Of course there are risks associated, but IMO, someone at APDN should certainly investigate the possibilities.
I believe the ADNAS website was updated yesterday introducing a new name for our direct to consumer solutions... For what it's worth ($69.95):
Backtrac — Get It Back! - Applied DNA Sciences
adnas.com/backtrac/
21 hours ago - Backtrac is a long-lasting tagging solution containing a plant-based molecular signature. Simply brush the clear liquid onto your valuables. Invisible in normal ...
Good one. Thanks RK.
I agree mostly Mike, although somewhat curious about "Exibit 1" at the end of Filing text...
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/744452/000153561017000058/0001535610-17-000058.txt
Henry Livingston posted a link to this Reuters piece yesterday.
https://counterfeitparts.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/white-house-panel-urges-u-s-defense-of-clout-in-high-end-chip-market-reuters/
For your convenience and consideration. Now if only US Chip Makers and our "Blue-Ribbon" political experts could agree on a proven provenance solution.
Another, dating back to November was just released a couple of days prior. I cant help but wonder if Dr.Khan's arrival has any connection to Nicole Richters appointment, after her 16 years at BASF...?
It appears she's been on board since November having worked for BASF over the previous 16 years.
Skeptical for sure, and I can't from a historical perspective, say without cause. Personally, 3 years ago, almost to the day, I posted this...
Post # 26963 (12/23/13)
"I remember, I think it was last years 4Q expecting 1M based on a 300K bonus the Doc took during the Q. There was a provision for such a bonus tied to 1M revenue in that Q and well we all (most, if not many) thought it was a given, fact is it was a horrendous letdown to hear the Q was only around 300K! Talk about pissed-off. Evidently beside the clause the Doc needed the dough and I guess he really didn't need the "provision". What a head fake! As an aside, I have wondered whether the resignation of Gerald Cannatucci, Board Member and Compensation Committee Chair at the time, was at all related?..."
I don't see proof of malfeasance.
From our 10-K...
Revenue Recognition
We recognize revenue in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 605, Revenue Recognition (“ASC 605”). ASC 605 requires that four basic criteria must be met before revenue can be recognized: (1) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; (2) delivery has occurred and/or service has been performed; (3) the selling price is fixed and determinable; and (4) collectability is reasonably assured. Determination of criteria (3) and (4) are based on management’s judgments regarding the fixed nature of the selling prices of the products delivered or services provided and the collectability of those amounts. Provisions for allowances and other adjustments are provided for in the same period the related sales are recorded. We defer any revenue for which the product has not been delivered, service has not been provided, or is subject to refund until such time that we and the customer jointly determine that the product has been delivered, the service has been provided, or no refund will be required. At September 30, 2016 and 2015, we recorded total deferred revenue of $2,737,588 and $282,050, respectively.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/744452/000157104916020376/t1600769_10k.htm#a_010
I believe what's left to recognize (assuming 100% joint agreement) in Q1, and/or beyond is currently: $2.7 Million, no?
Recommended Reading:
U.S. Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement 2017-2019
One of the most comprehensive reports I've seen (although come Jan. 20th, who knows what it's worth). Developed with participation and contribution from committee members representing the following entities:
1. Office of Management and Budget;
2. Relevant units within the Department of Justice,
including the Criminal Division, the Civil Division,
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
3. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the
International Trade Administration, and other
relevant units of the Department of Commerce;
4. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative;
5. Department of State, including the Bureau of
Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs, the
U.S. Agency for International Development, and
the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs;
6. Department of Homeland Security, including
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
7. The Food and Drug Administration of the
Department of Health and Human Services;
8. Department of Agriculture;
9. Department of the Treasury; and
10. U.S. Copyright Office.
It's about a 150 page pdf available here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/2016jointstrategicplan.pdf
Or highlights from Securing Industry...
"Together, we can enhance our enforcement programmes and policies for the modern era, and ensure that collective efforts to curb illicit trade in counterfeit and pirated goods, online commercial piracy, trade secret theft, and other acts of IP infringement are maintained as a top priority." at:
https://www.securingindustry.com/pharmaceuticals/industry-welcomes-us-s-robust-plan-on-ip-infringement/s40/a3086/#.WFW3vbvmTpc
Recommended Reading:
U.S. Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement 2017-2019
One of the most comprehensive reports I've seen (although come Jan. 20th, who knows what it's worth). Developed with participation and contribution from committee members representing the following entities:
1. Office of Management and Budget;
2. Relevant units within the Department of Justice,
including the Criminal Division, the Civil Division,
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
3. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the
International Trade Administration, and other
relevant units of the Department of Commerce;
4. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative;
5. Department of State, including the Bureau of
Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs, the
U.S. Agency for International Development, and
the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs;
6. Department of Homeland Security, including
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
7. The Food and Drug Administration of the
Department of Health and Human Services;
8. Department of Agriculture;
9. Department of the Treasury; and
10. U.S. Copyright Office.
It's about a 150 page pdf available here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/2016jointstrategicplan.pdf
Or highlights from Securing Industry...
"Together, we can enhance our enforcement programmes and policies for the modern era, and ensure that collective efforts to curb illicit trade in counterfeit and pirated goods, online commercial piracy, trade secret theft, and other acts of IP infringement are maintained as a top priority." at:
https://www.securingindustry.com/pharmaceuticals/industry-welcomes-us-s-robust-plan-on-ip-infringement/s40/a3086/#.WFW3vbvmTpc
Good to hear Mike. Between yesterdays "resell" prospectus and todays PR it seems some of us are a bit loopy, I certainly am. Thinking too much, going to take A1's advice and step back awhile.
All the best...
Who in their right mind thinks anyone would pay the "exercise price" of $3.50 anytime soon? The only question is how low can we go? "...we may not receive any proceeds"?, WTF
Hey Mike, times up.
Just published on Fidelity. Need to know more but this (plus Cheeky post 42496), i'd think twice about your offer.
Aloha Mike, speaking of the NDAA 2017, Henry Livingston posted this on Monday. I haven't examined the full Conference Report (he provides link) but his summary of amendments to sec. 818 are welcome. Particularly encouraging is the change of the term "Trusted Suppliers" to "suppliers that meet anticounterfeiting requirements”. Definitional debate is abated, and clarity of focus on anticounterfeiting is reinforced.
https://counterfeitparts.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/ndaa-2017-to-further-amend-s818-of-ndaa2012/#more-5039
After reading this, clearly I overlooked the humanitarian aspects. Uzbek cotton could very well have been number one.
Is this the "contract" you were referring to?
Yesterday's PR, the bottom line...
Given the price point might it have something to do with our recent "private placement" @ 2.20? Some Shabby shuffle of sorts.
Thanks again RK. Looks like we are in good company...
December 1st (Day 2):
Winners of the day, so far...
As reported by Marketwatch on Fidelity site:
More Pure Speculation
Skipping through the ADNAS site I just noticed a change to a photo (at least on my old Mac) of their Pharmaceutical Supply Change page. Until recently pills and a pill bottle were highlighted and strangely enough recently have been resized. The bottle of pills had a very interesting "PFIZ" on the label, plain as day. I meant to mention it at the time but didn't. Anyhow, just checked again. All I can see now is the "Z" on the label (and a black box over the rest, perhaps updated computers can see more). Did it ever mean anything? Maybe not, but if I were working with another Pharma Co. I certainly would think before using pills marked with a PFIZ. Stupid mistake? Perhaps.
http://adnas.com/pharmaceutical-supply-chain-security/