Replies to post #34228 on Kraig Biocraft Laboratories Inc (KBLB)

[ZincFinger]

OK, it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that

1) the provisional patent application in Sept 2010 established a priority date that is good both for the US patent and for all foreign patents of the PCT (144 countries in all) so long as further required actions are taken by their deadlines

2) there are a number of significant advantages to delaying further actions until they are needed (i.e.: their deadline is close or there is some other need (a buyer wants to talk about it, or some other commercialization activity that requires that patent protection at a given level be in place. (Those reasons include the deferment of considerable fees and delays in revealing information that could be useful to competitors (the eventual required publication of the patent application).

3) because of 1 and 2 above the STANDARD PRACTICE is to have the papers ready but to delay filing further actions until there is some need to do so.

4) the effect of 3 is that patent actions are almost always followed closely by some activity that creates a need that they be done OR the deadline for them.

5) that, given all of the above, an activity that closely follows a patent action that required that the patent action first be done IN NO WAY implies that this action had been "held up" because of a prior failure to file the action.

Do you acknowledge the truth of the above and, if not, for what specific reason do you dispute it?

I say this because all of the above has been pointed out to you several times and yet you go on making statements that appear to imply that commercial activity on Monster Silk or other KBLB products has been delayed due to failure to file needed patent actions yet very clearly EITHER 1) you know this not to be true OR 2) you have some reason for disputing the above and yet have never offer the slightest dispute of it.

In plain English: are you or are you not claiming that at any time, a commercialization action of any kind was that would otherwise have taken place was delayed because of the failure to have previously filed a patent action that needed to be done beforehand? If you are, what is your reason for contesting the above?

IMHO it's very fair to request supporting evidence when one contends that what is the usual and expected practice has not occurred and there is no evidence that it did not.

I.E. Put up or shut up.