Replies to post #12720 on DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[frogdreaming]

worktoplay, You have raised some interesting points and ask some pertinent questions. Here are a couple more that occur to me.

-Given the history of Shriver's arrival and the subsequent and very immediate patent application bearing both names, is it fair to assume that the new 'advantage' in developing pharmacological classifiers, wass a fairly sudden departure from the previously developed technology that bore the previously announced development projects Statinome and Ovanome?

-Since the competetive advantage had a limited timespan (until the USPTO published the application) can we assume that that advantage has been exploited vigorously and the scientific team has developed new classifiers in the interim?

-As the advantage post dates the Statinome and Ovanome classifiers and the competetive advantage was necessarily short lived, does this explain the appaerent 'back burner' status of these previously highly touted products? The limited resources of the compaqny would necessarily have to be devoted to developing products based on the short lived competetive advantage.

-Now that the application has been published and the 'headstart' has played out, can we expect to hear about all the new classifiers that have been developed during the protected timeframe?

-If there have been no new products developed in the interim due to monetary or resource limitations, what advantage still exists now that the 'cat is out of the bag' so to speak?

regards,
frog

[mingwan0]

W2P, yes it must be the same patent (US: 60/467,613 - Methods and Markers for Accurate Estimates of Human Ancestry). I did wonder myself whether or not the statement: "the company will refrain from presenting details of the discovery until the findings are published by the US Patent and Trademark Office" could be taken to infer that the patent is about to be/has been granted by the US Patent Office? It has been 18 months since the application was made...

Yes, it came from the IPDL, which has undergone a bit of a facelift in the last week or two (amongst other things they merged two formerly separate searches). At the moment there is only the front page. The front page database is updated to 26 February, whereas the full text database is updated to 12 February. Whether this means we will get the full text to this patent in two weeks time I do not know, as the lag in updates may not be the same as the lag between the front page and full text updates for a given patent of course. There is no corresponding entry on either the US Patent Office or Espacenet databases.

Incidentally, for the benefit of others, the IPDL search page is here:

http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/en/search/pct/search-adv.jsp

You have to use a keyword search parameter in the query box. I usually use the term "in/frudakis".

Interesting point about the dates. I think that we can comfortably infer that Mark Shriver was involved with the company some time before July 2002.

I agree the details on this one will be very interesting.

Those are good questions you ended your post with! Worth repeating. Does this qualify as the company having been mentioned along side of Shriver as a contributor to his research? Are these Paul McKeigue's markers, or ours? Just curious...I get confused you know. You and me both Mike!