Applied DNA Sciences Inc (APDN)

[2020 hindsight]

I wonder if the PR's from APDN were released in response to this PR from one of their competitors, who are now saying that synthetic dna is better and cheaper to use than botanical dna? I don't believe they have ever done a comparison between the two types before, but I could be wrong as I so often am.

http://beforeitsnews.com/business/2012/11/brandwatch-technologies-announces-dna-solution-used-in-pharmaceutical-packaging-2470354.html

The BrandWatch synthetic DNA is true deoxyribonucleic acid, and when compared to botanical DNA, synthetic DNA has several advantages in antic-counterfeit and diversion applications. By using short as opposed to long strands, the covert DNA signatures can encode significantly more target information that can be retrieved in a standard lab test. This allows for validation of many specific aspects of the process (e.g., manufacture date, lot number, production site, contract number, etc.).

The DNA system used by BrandWatch can efficiently make thousands of highly differentiable DNA taggants and can identify individual DNA codes in a pooled sample of different DNA taggants. This can be done at a fraction of the cost of longer botanical DNA, and allow for the periodic introduction of new DNA strands to keep ahead of the counterfeiters.

I don't know if their claims are justified or not, but regardless, it is an obvious attempt to make their product look superior to APDN's. If I were an APDN top dog and saw that article with the one pharmaceutical company adopting their technology, I would respond with an in your face press release or two of my own that might say we have signed more than one (i.e., multiple) contracts, and have even got 3rd party folks signed up to get our product to market faster than anyone else.

So nyah, nyah, to you Brandwatch. :-P