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.
well then move it to .041. lol.
Some folks think 411 & 911 trades are a signal that precedes a number of small sell orders meant to drive the share price down (a shake) in order to free up cheaper shares for whomever is trying to accumulate.
OT: sorry, you referenced the same article I was quoting. Just saw that.
chig, the article below clarifies most of the points without having to waddle though the nonsense:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5364/689
BIOTECHNOLOGY:
The Patenting of DNA
John J. Doll
In the past two decades, there has been an explosion of innovative growth in the field of biotechnology. This growth has resulted in many new products and methodologies that are useful in agriculture, environmental biotechnology, food technology, and the diagnostics and pharmaceutical industries. Other results are new areas of research and development in genomics and bioinformatics. The Human Genome Project is a global coordinated effort to characterize human genetic material and provide a complete human DNA sequence library by 2005. Even though the project is not yet complete, a vast amount of useful DNA sequence information has already been gathered, including sequences of genes and their regulatory regions and genome markers such as expressed sequence tags (ESTs) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (1).
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recognizes that many people in the biotechnology community are concerned with the possible impact of patents granted for DNA-related inventions (2) on research and innovation in biomedical research and technology. Some in the biotechnology community are concerned that patents on ESTs or SNPs may impede cooperation among laboratories and limit the ready availability of data and materials to researchers. Public access to such sequence data has been the subject of much debate. Several bioinformatics companies are building proprietary sequence databases. On the other hand, some pharmaceutical companies, as well as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), are creating public databases of sequence information to ensure public access to such information. Some critics have even suggested that patents should not be granted for these new discoveries and that a new form of intellectual property protection is needed.
However, in the USPTO's view, new areas of technology do not create the need for a whole new specialized patent law. In many ways, the arguments currently being used for DNA sequence technology resemble those voiced 30 to 40 years ago when polymer chemistry was an emerging technology. At that time, people argued that if broad generic claims were granted on the building blocks of basic polymers, it would devastate the industry. In fact, no such disaster occurred. For example, the issuing in 1965 of a basic patent broadly claiming a vulcanizable copolymer of aliphatic mono-olefins and unsaturated bridged-ring hydrocarbons (3) did not preclude the later issuing of patents to different inventors for several copolymers of this type (4). These patents represent early examples of ethylene-propylene-diene monomer (EPDM) rubbers, which are highly weather- and ozone-resistant, stable to thermal aging, and have good electrical insulating properties. These EPDM rubbers have been commercially important as components in tires, weather stripping, radiator hoses, wire insulation, impact modifiers, and roofing.
EPDM copolymers were assembled from three basic building blocks that could be combined in many different ways and, as such, generic and specific claims to these copolymers are analogous to claims that may be issued to DNA inventions. Just as the issuing of broad product claims at the early stages of this technology did not deter development of other new vulcanizable copolymers, the issuing of relatively broad claims in genomic technology should not deter inventions in genomics. Two relevant examples of this in the field of biotechnology are the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease, which were patented and then widely licensed to permit the biotech industry to continue to grow and benefit from these inventions.
The same patentability analysis is conducted for every patent application, regardless of whether the application is for a computer chip, a mechanical apparatus, a pharmaceutical, or a piece of DNA. In every field of technology--whether emerging, complex, or competitive--all the conditions for patentability (such as statutory subject matter utility, enablement, written description, novelty, and non-obviousness) must be met before a claim is allowed (5).
In applying existing patent law to DNA sequence inventions, a first area of concern is whether such inventions constitute patentable subject matter. As DNA sequences are typically isolated and purified manufactures or compositions of matter under U.S. law; in other words, products of human ingenuity "having a distinctive name, character, [and] use" (6) (see Figure), they are patentable subject matter in the United States. In order for DNA sequences to be distinguished from their naturally occurring counterparts, which cannot be patented, the patent application must state that the invention has been purified or isolated or is part of a recombinant molecule or is now part of a vector.
Product of Human Ingenuity. This patent was issued to Chakrabarty following the Supreme Court decision, Diamond v. Chakrabarty (6), in which the patentability of a living bacterium, genetically engineered to break down crude oil, was affirmed.
Although some SNPs and ESTs may not directly identify genes, they may still be extremely useful and thus satisfy the utility requirement. SNPs and ESTs may have specific utilities that are separate and distinct from the genes to which they correspond. For example, SNPs can be used to trace ancestry or parentage. ESTs can be used for chromosome identification and gene mapping. Both can be used to identify genes that contribute to predisposition to disease.
Claims to DNA elements useful for forensic identification, the identification of tissue type or origin, chromosome mapping, chromosome identification, or tagging of a gene of known and useful function must fulfill the enablement requirement. For any invention, enablement is satisfied when, by reading the patent application, an individual who has skill in the technology would have been able to make and use the invention as intended without undue experimentation.
In fact, it is common for the patentability of DNA elements to hinge on whether sufficient information has been given to enable at least one credible or specific utility. Examples of potentially non-enabled utilities for a DNA sequence fragment include its use to locate disease-associated genes when the disease has no known genetic origin; as an antisense reagent when the corresponding protein to be suppressed is unknown; as a triplex probe to inhibit expression of a protein when the protein and its function are unknown; and to locate and identify genes of unknown utility.
An area of patent law that is still developing relates to the kind of information that must be included in the patent application of a biotechnology-related invention in order to sufficiently identify and distinguish its characteristics from other subject matter (in other words, satisfaction of the written description requirement). In the case of the Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly (7), the court held that in order to claim a specific DNA sequence, such as the human DNA encoding insulin, more is required than a mere statement that it is part of the invention, plus a fragment of the claimed nucleic acid, plus a reference to a potential method of isolating the entire sequence. As a result of the Lilly case and several earlier cases (8), the USPTO is preparing interim examination guidelines for determining compliance with the written description requirement that should be made available for public comment within the next 3 months.
There has been considerable debate and discussion over how the issuance of a patent on DNA fragments of a gene will affect the patenting of full-length genes. The USPTO views this situation as analogous to having a patent on a picture tube. The picture tube patent does not preclude someone else from obtaining a patent on a television set. However, the holder of the picture tube patent could sue the television set makers for patent infringement if they use the patented picture tube without obtaining a license.
In a second example, a patent might be granted for compound X, which is disclosed to have a specific use (such as a headache remedy). If other investigators find that X has a new and unexpected use, perhaps in combination with compound Y, for treatment of heart arrhythmias, they may have to obtain a license from the individual who first patented compound X in order to sell XY.
In summary, once a product is patented, that patent extends to any use, even those that have not been disclosed in the patent. A future nonobvious method of using that product may be patentable, but the first patent would have been dominant.
For DNA to be patentable, it must be novel and nonobvious in light of structurally related DNA or RNA information taught in nonpatent literature or suggested by prior patents. To be considered nonobvious, the invention must have been compared to what was known previously and be judged not to be obvious to someone of ordinary skill working in the field. Because of this, patent claims limited in scope to a specific novel and nonobvious SNP or EST (for example, for forensic identification) would not necessarily preclude the future patenting of the corresponding full-length gene of known function discovered later. The granting of comprehensive claims to downstream DNA products such as full-length genes or to ultimate proteins is unlikely in the absence of a significant amount of information about the gene and protein being disclosed in the patent application.
Two specific examples may be helpful. A patent is granted to a large fragment of DNA, within which exists a gene of great medical interest, even though the location of the open reading frame with the fragment has not been determined. The person who actually discovers and isolates the gene may also be able to receive a patent. Alternatively, many patented DNA fragments such as ESTs or SNPs may be isolated that turn out to be part of the same gene. In both cases, the second patent holder may have to obtain licenses from or pay fees to the primary patent holder but is not prevented from obtaining the second patent.
If the invention has been described in a patent or printed publication anywhere in the world, or if it has been in public use or on sale in the United States for more than 1 year before the date on which an application for patent is filed in the United States, a patent cannot be obtained. Thus, any SNPs or ESTs that have been available in a public database for more than 1 year prior to the filing date of the application cannot be patented. If an SNP is published less than a year before the patent application is filed and the inventor (who was not one of the authors) can show that he or she invented the SNP before the publication date, the SNP may still be patentable.
Without the incentive of patents, there would be less investment in DNA research, and scientists might not disclose their new DNA products to the public. Issuance of patents to such products not only results in the dissemination of technological information to the scientific community for use as a basis for further research but also stimulates investment in the research, development, and commercialization of new biologics. It is only with the patenting of DNA technology that some companies, particularly small ones, can raise sufficient venture capital to bring beneficial products to the marketplace or fund further research. A strong U.S. patent system is critical for the continued development and dissemination to the public of information on DNA sequence elements.
References and Notes
An EST is a short sequence of the complementary DNA that was expressed by the full-length gene. A polymorphism, such as an SNP, is a variation in the DNA sequence of some members of a species.
F. S. Collins, M.S. Guyer, A. Chakravarti, Science 278, 1580 (1997).
U.S. Patent No. 3,211,709, filed 14 July 1958 by Adamek et al. and assigned to Hercules Powder Company.
U.S Patent No. 3,527,739, issued 8 September 1970 to Valvassori et al. and assigned to Montecatini Edison; U.S. Patent No. 3,531,447, issued 29 September 1970 to Gumboldt et al. and assigned to Farbwerke Hoechst Aktiengesellschraft.
Title 35 of the United States Code, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 310, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980).
Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 25 USPQ2d 1601 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The author acknowledges the contributions of S. G. Kunin, N. J. Linck, R. A. Schwartz, M. M. Parr, R. J. Hill, and S. A. Chambers.
The author is director, Biotechnology Examination, Technology Center 1600, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC 20231, USA.
downside volume is pretty low the last two days. I think we probably put in a bottom tomorrow if the volume remains low. If you zoom out to the weekly candlesticks, this still looks good. Unless the stock starts showing negative divergences on the weekly chart, I think we're still pointed up.
Thanks, Bag. Same to you and your family. Haven't talked in a long while - I hope everyones doing well.
er....yeah.
....because they have to sell securities to buyers, Einstein. In other words, they can't sell more than the market can bear. And they have to do it in conjunction with other investors and traders who are also selling. That takes time, even for small amounts of cash.
OLMP = diluting MM. They are not shorting as the King of Pennies would suggest.
That would never happen. Foyle can barely even dunk. And how is Dnaprint going to take his $8MM/yr salary?
If Golden State is looking to trade then Dnaprint should make a bid for Ellis - management could use a guy who can shoot from behind the arc. That would be sweet.
perhaps you could get Matt to bend the rules so that they could set up their own board and pump each other. just a thought.
They've been selling less shares into the market, yes. But they've also been issuing a great deal of shares to support operations. So that doesn't indicate to me that revenues are necessarily up, it indicates that someone, presumably Dutchess, is holding those shares. I'm not drawing any conclusions from that, just an observation.
Question about the x86 transition:
I have a Mac/PC office with some of the computers getting long in the tooth. We would like to transition to a Mac only office. If I decide to buy an X86 Mac am I going to need to get new printer/scanner drivers? Will older drivers run on some kind of emulation software?
I've gone through this before with 64 bit Windows and it was no fun. But I would like to think that Apple is more organized about the matter. Thanks in advance for anyone who knows what Apple's plan is for driver support.
OT: For a long time I believed that Lance was doping. But in the last couple of years I stopped believing this - I don't believe it's possible to be tested as much as he is and still evade the hounds.
If some of the accusations leveled against him were well supported in some way then I might have reason to doubt him. But they all come with disclaimers such as this in the article:
Separately, the lab said it could not confirm that the positive results were Armstrong's. It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist.
how can someone go public with such a disclaimer?
end of August. sometime between 22nd & 24th if I remember correctly.
unfortunately "soon" is like the last two minutes of a football game and is subject to a temporal distortion while maintaining a high anxiety level.
rofl. good analogy.
I think the last part of that letter dovetails into earlier talk of the "operating system" in which DNAP and Beckman would work together to provide a complete discovery platform. Maybe not...
you should call Etrade and have them rectify that immediately. If you buy or sell "DNAP" it will not be split adjusted and your account will have to be resettled as "DNAG" at the price during which the error is realized. That means you will be left with a margin call if you sell. Considering that the stock has just undergone a 20-1 split that means the margin call could be 20x the direction the stock moves. In other words: DO NOT BUY OR SELL "DNAP"!
different splits are going to correspond with different strategies. Like I mentioned earlier, you can come up with a scenario that supports any type of split.
My opinion only: Revenues are going to have to come before a stable share price or a consistently higher share price. The shortest route is to acquire revenues and management has made it abundantly clear that this is what they want to do. In order to do so we will have to give up an awful lot. But it will be a one time charge as opposed to 3 or 4 more years of financing through shares which does double damage.
that applies only to larger, better established companies which are already listed on major exchanges. In fact, one of the key points that the article raises, "liquidity", would go *way* down if we did a 1:1000 R/S.
If we did a 1:000 split, you could probably drive a truck through the spread.
Again, we would have to get off the otc for those things to come into play anyway and there are a number or requirements that we simply don't meet yet.
I don't follow.
In order to be off the otc there are a number or requirements that we would have to meet first. We would need more revenue and more tangible assets for starters. We would also need a minimum float and a minimum value to that float as well. A 1:1000 R/S might violate those requirements depending on which exchange and which path management chose.
Having such a small float (less than 2MM) would likely scare away anyone who was looking for share in exchange for cash anyway since they can't sell out without driving the price down quickly.
Additionally, some of the listing requirements that call for a minimum threshold of revenue and assets would obviate the need for DNAP to get additional funding in the first place since our cash needs are fairly low for a biotech R&D company.
You can create certain scenarios in which a 1:1000 R/S makes sense but it's not a workable strategy in a broad sense.
getting over 5 does little. There are plenty of otc stocks that trade between $5 and $10 that have trouble getting financing. As long as you trade on the OTC there is a world of financing that is off limits.
Management is trying to exchange new shares for value (in addition to building value over time with existing pipeline - Tony indicated that this, by itself, would take too long).
ok. Thanks. For a number of reasons, I think Dnaprint as a R&D/holding company would be much more effective than the structure we have now. If the company matures to the point that this becomes feasible I believe that it will benefit shareholders substantially.
grati1028 - you mentioned a diagram in which Dnaprint was the parent company of several subsidiaries. Was there much talk about this? Was there any mention of whether they would be wholly or partially owned? Spun off or acquired?
There are some interesting possibilities of this kind of relationship as it pertains to DNAP's share price.
I don't care enough about GNSC to spend much time but from looking through the acquisition and financials of each company I would have thought that these points would be worth consideration:
1. Genaissances has been trading below $1 for almost 2 months and is in danger once again of being delisted from the Naz. (CLDA is trading at $19 and so they avoid this problem)
2. Despite their revenues they have not been able to turn a profit and without halting the genomic R&D (which they recently have done) they have not even come close to turning a profit. Furthermore, there is no indication that they will turn a profit any time in the near future.
3. Prior to their last refinancing, they only had enough cash to keep the lights on until mid-June (about right now). I would estimate the latest refinancing deal pushed the day of reckoning to sometime in August. The all stock acquisition does not solve this problem as CLDA does not have much cash. However, CLDA's revenues are growing.
4. The original CEO, CFO, and CSO of Genaissance have all left the company.
5. Genaissance does not have one single successful project under it's belt. Money aside, their science has not produced even one marketable product and there are no products in their pipeline that are scheduled to be completed anywhere in the near future.
The above is not an analysis. Just other points to consider. I would say that the management of GNSC has now cashed out and that CLDA has no intention of becoming a genomics company. GNSC is asset rich and cash poor. If any of GNSC's pipeline products look promising they will likely see them through however I don't see them restarting the R&D machine. They now have GNSC's facilities, the Familion test, and a couple long range projects, the status of which has not been disclosed to the shareholders.
that's a poor analysis.
Genaissance is getting acquired:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/050621/1122365.html?.v=2
Clinical Data Inc. announced Tuesday it is acquiring Genaissance Pharmaceuticals Inc. in an all-stock transaction valued at approximately $56 million.
In the merger -- approved by both boards of directors -- Newton-based diagnostic company Clinical Data (NASDAQ: CLDA - News) will marry its expertise with Connecticut pharmacogenomics company Genaissance (NASDAQ: GNSC - News), creating a combined company that will enter the molecular diagnostics market.
Under the terms of the agreement, GNSC stockholders will receive 0.065 shares of CLDA common stock for each share of GNSC common stock in a tax-free exchange. Based on CLDA's and GNSC's closing prices on Monday, June 20, this represents a price of $1.33 per share of GNSC common stock. GNSC preferred shareholders will exchange their shares for Clinical Data preferred shares.
Upon the close of the transaction, GNSC common and preferred shareholders will own approximately 40 percent of the combined company.
The transaction is subject to certain customary conditions and is expected to close in the fourth calendar quarter.
Thanks. I think that's a point of clarification that needs to be made by Apple because the implications are pretty big.
I have a hard time seeing Apple give up control over the hardware. OS X bundled on a Dell? That would be weird. Somehow I don't see that happening.
But suppose they did? The OEM/Microsoft relationship would never be the same. OEMs wouldn't necessarily have to pick between Longhorn and OS X. Considering that OS X is half the price of Windows why not bundle them both and let the consumer decide inside their own living room?
Who do you suppose would win that battle? Heck, even if Microsoft got 4 out of every 5 consumers we're talking 20% share for Apple inside the home. And I would venture to say it would be much closer than that.
I've got sort of a dumb question:
Once the transition to x86 is complete is there anything that would preclude one from installing a Mac OS on an older x86 box? Is Apple still going to be able to have control over the hardware end of their business? TIA.
rofl. eom.
chris, I don't really buy into rumors but speaking theoretically, if they sold the right to use ADB for forensics in exchange for several years of operating cash, it could be a very good thing.
ummm. yeah.
no.
except for rare cases.
not MM's. there was a lot of volume that preceded this move. we were close to 20MM about an hour and a half ago.
and you wonder why you're in here....
I believe "polling you in the butt" was the actual response but I can't say for sure because the message has been deleted.
You also called the board (those who were long, anyway) "pussies". You labeled a couple of the members as "poop boys". And you also became belligerent when people tried to converse with you on a reasonable level over topics that you, yourself brought up. Telling them that:
1. They don't know how to read
2. They need to see a psychologist
3. They enjoy getting screwed
If I'm not mistaken, Matt sent you several private messages asking you to please tone it down.
....then he'll tell you you're cute. What's next?
same thing with the put options. If you show him why he's wrong he'll tell you to see a psychologist. Then he'll tell you that you don't know how to read. Then he'll mumble something about the transfer agent.
You can keep pressing him but the more you do it, the more he digresses.
the entities that you refer to as board officers are selling recipients of restricted stock from board officers. Mostly from Vikki Cook during 2001.
The Knobias database just tags the sale of that stock and where it came from. If the stock originated as a distribution from a board officer then it tags a little (BO) on the seller. The seller could be anybody and in most cases they are not related to the company.
Some of the entities on the list that have a "BO" suffix are separate companies. I would hope that you're aware that these obviously cannot be board officers. That should have been the first telltale clue that you're barking up the wrong tree.
They've been doing that a long..........while per transfer agent.
What is that supposed to mean? Is that intended to be some kind of vague response that implies that you know what your talking about - but just ambiguous enough to hide the fact that you don't?
Aren't you able to defend your position in the slightest?