I think we see eye to eye on one of your points. Sure, who cares if Nick opened up another lab or for what reasons he may lead others to believe that he did so? That’s a non-issue by itself.
“So a Lab is a Lab, is a Lab. They need doors, windows, microscopes and equipment. Are there things that are the same or similar in both. Maybe. To meet the same standards or requirements to be Weed Labs one would think that the government would want certain tests run, so probably there are. There are more labs than these. Do they have similar equipment or facilities...Probably.”
Now I have a hard time taking you seriously. You just nearly exhausted yourself on the soapbox talking about the dangers of assuming too much based on all the “IF’s.” Do you not realize how many “IF’s” you just cracked open here? Who are you? How familiar are you with IP pertaining to testing labs? What do you know about Washington’s plan to develop uniform procedures and codes in the near future? What kind of IP legal experience do you have?
Unless there’s some brilliant revelation about your experience or inside information from ATTBF that you possess and plan to bring to the table, I don’t know how you can claim you’re even remotely qualified to issue this conclusion:
“Looks like a vindictive waste of share holders money and energy. Lack of feedback...keeping hush, hush...or now running scared?”
Sounds to me like you’re screaming “We're being attacked by UFOs” without knowing what a passenger jet looks like.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
