Replies to post #80301 on DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[Porgie Tirebiter]

You are missing the whole point - again.

The patent application acknowledges intellectual property owned by among many others, DNAPrint. But it is a patent application for a product to be called DNAWitness, and it has not been filed on behalf of DNAPrint. It has been filed on behalf of three individuals, two of whom happen to be it's officers, and a third party.

The executives who are in charge should be defending their trademarks. They should be defending DNAPrint's (your) "intellectual property". I'm not saying anyone is doing anything wrong, far from it. I think what they are doing is completely above board, and perfectly legal. But it may not be completely in line with shareholder's interest.

I don't think shareholders are paying enough attention to what is going on with this company. You deserve answers from these guys. You deserve to know that they are acting in your interests, and not carrying the intellectual property out the back door.

Believe it or not, despite the severe abuse you heap onto the poor guy, UkiwiS is trying to do you a favor.

[Porgie Tirebiter]

Dan:

You posted: "The trademark only pertains to the name. Not the product, the intellectual property, or the relationships with customers. Look it up. Nobody should talk about trademarks and be ignorant of this basic consideration. If one trademark is abandoned, and another company happens to trademark that name, it is simple enough to just trademark a new name for the thing. Some trademarks are critical, of course, like "Coca Cola." That's quite different from the case of DNAWitness."


Isn't it at least a little bit disturbing that this compnay seems, at best, to be indifferent about protecting the DNAWitness trademark?

And isn't it a even a little bit worrisome that two of the officers in association with a third party are applying for a patent on a product called DNAWitness, on behalf of themselves. Not DNAPrint Genomics. The intellectual product belongs to you. The shareholders. I'm not saying these guys are walking out the back door with the intellectual property, not at all. But don't they at least owe the shareholders an answer as to what they are up to? Why aren't they communicating with the shareholders?

I'm not bashing anything. I'm just pointing out things that are in the public domain, that seem a little worrisome.