DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[Porgie Tirebiter]

Dan:

You posted: "The trademark only pertains to the name. Not the product, the intellectual property, or the relationships with customers. Look it up. Nobody should talk about trademarks and be ignorant of this basic consideration. If one trademark is abandoned, and another company happens to trademark that name, it is simple enough to just trademark a new name for the thing. Some trademarks are critical, of course, like "Coca Cola." That's quite different from the case of DNAWitness."


Isn't it at least a little bit disturbing that this compnay seems, at best, to be indifferent about protecting the DNAWitness trademark?

And isn't it a even a little bit worrisome that two of the officers in association with a third party are applying for a patent on a product called DNAWitness, on behalf of themselves. Not DNAPrint Genomics. The intellectual product belongs to you. The shareholders. I'm not saying these guys are walking out the back door with the intellectual property, not at all. But don't they at least owe the shareholders an answer as to what they are up to? Why aren't they communicating with the shareholders?

I'm not bashing anything. I'm just pointing out things that are in the public domain, that seem a little worrisome.