Very lucky that I'd already finished my coffee when I read that one!
"The most important of these is that they are using Dr. Fraser’s PiggyBac process, which will result in silkworms that make a mixture of spider silk and silkworm silk. While this silk may have many commercial applications of significant worth, EntoGenetics silk, using a process that will create 100% recombinant spider silk, will be distinctly different from it."
Entogenetics process (UNdirected homologous recombination) is a great deal more random than ND's piggyBac transposon. "100% recombinant spider silk" can be interpreted a number of possible ways. But no matter which way you choose, Entogentics silk would be no more recombinant than KBLB's so that's just more pure hot air. And their product is no doubt "distinctly different", because it is INFERIOR: they've shown no evidence anywhere nor made any claim whatsoever that their product has spider silk protein INCORPORATED INTO THE STRUCTURE OF THE SILK, which is the critical achievement that ND/UW/KBLB has done (and PROVEN thru peer reviewed publication in the PNAS!) and no one else has to date.
"Unfortunately, Kraig Biocraft has not yet publically released the mechanical properties of the silk produced by its transgenics. Kraig Biocraft may have good reason to withhold this data, but without it the magnitude of their accomplishment is impossible to measure."
THAT is the ULTIMATE in hypocrisy! True, at that time, KBLB hadn't published the data (but since has, and it was VERY good). Entogenetics has itself never published the least trace of data and has declined specific requests for information on it (I requested information on that in May last year and never received even an acknowledgement of receipt of the request.) Nor was my submitted comment (a suggestion that they publish some data) ever even posted on their website blog.
NO other group has succeeded in getting spider silk protein INCORPORATED INTO THE STRUCTURE of silkworm silk although many have tried. Entogenetics misquoted KBLB's statement that it had to make it appear as if KBLB was claiming that no one else had just gotten in included in the silk (without being incorporated into the structure). That's just plain defamatory, IMHO.
Their comments about KBLB's IP protection were also dead wrong. The SIAL/SGMO/KBLB deal, of course, had not yet been made for the zinc fingers so can't blame them for not mentioning it. But they omit that KBLB had exlusive rights to over 200 spider genes involved in silk production!
If their research on spider silk is as incomplete and sloppy as their research on KBLB, they haven't got a prayer of success.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
