Replies to post #229073 on Kraig Biocraft Laboratories Inc (KBLB)

[WebSlinger]

<< Thompson has been sitting on this news until he felt a need to boost the share price. >>

And against the law.

But that doesn't matter to scumbag CEOs.

[faithabides]

Did I miss something? You prefer the sp moves sub penny much faster so you can buy tens of millions of shares? .. he propped it up for a day, two, a week? I think he needs to buy time. What we should be talking about is this ridiculous OTC market where everything is a moon shot or drop into oblivion. .. fun for traders but a nightmare for investors until they actually mass produce the tonnage and scale.

[arachnodude]

Really, the "important clue" was contained within the PR from the company to begin with. This convoluted practice of picking apart KBLB PR's to redirect current and future KBLB investors towards believing the CEO is misleading them is a disingenuous practice in the least.

The clue: "patent protections."

It shouldn't take breaking down the use of words in a sentence, but, apparently that's what it does take. So let's go...

In the PR's title is the "hook." Yep, every article/communication really should have one. The "hook" in this regard is "ADDS EUROPEAN UNION TO EVER-GROWING PORTFOLIO OF SPIDER SILK PATENTS."

Misleading? Nope. Well, not to anyone who follows EXACTLY what the company says and does without a twisting action towards the negative. Even if it was misleading, one gains the clarification needed by reading the rest of the PR. Which, by the way, is an intended purpose of a catchy headline. The "hook" does that. Worked here.

So, how did the rest of the PR clarify? I'm not sure if anyone else noticed it or not, but, the company went out of their way to ensure "patent protections" was used to clarify things. In fact, they wanted people reading the article to know there's an emphasis on "protections" over actual "patent." How? Well, by using that combination of "protections," by my count, SIX TIMES in the PR. One can't really get the gist of the PR without "protections" slapping them in the face. In fact, after starting the PR's first sentence with using "protections," the entire second paragraph, containing just three sentences, all included "protections" in each sentence.

Let me recap:

Opening:

...the leading developer of spider silk-based fibers, announces today that it has been granted patent protection for its recombinant spider silk technologies in the European Union.

2nd Paragraph:

Securing patent protection for the Company’s recombinant spider silk materials in this major consumer market is a significant milestone for spider silk commercialization.

These protections will provide the Company greater control over the use of its revolutionary spider silk materials.

Beyond protections for the Company’s core focus in fibers and textiles, this growing list of patents allows for an expanded set of applications for the unique properties offered by spider silk.

Then, to add emphasis, a direct quote from a Company Exec:

“Securing the patent protections for our recombinant spider silk in Europe is a major milestone for Kraig,” said COO Jon Rice. “Europe marks the largest single consumer market where we have been secured IP protection for our silk. Based on the interest we are seeing, we expect that it will be one of the first markets where consumers are introduced to products based on spider silk.”

Legal definition of "patent protection:"

Patent protection allows the inventor of a new product or design to have exclusive rights to make, sell, use, and/or import the item throughout the United States. No other company or individual can make, sell, use, or important an item that is identical or even very similar. If another company or person does infringe on the patent protection, laws allow the patent holder to sue for infringement.

I'm thinking the CEO went out of his way to ensure there was no confusion as to what was being referenced in this PR. If there was confusion, it certainly wasn't his fault.