To clarify, I am wondering because if it is 3 months for NNLX, then the shelf life for the competitors must be pretty low. This could be a good market for nano if clients have to order and use the competition plates within a few days when they could be storing them for at least 90 instead.
Site was registered 1/28/2014 through godaddy. The page index was added on 2/24/2014 and the current image showing was last updated 2/26/2014.
A new site, but not really that important as long as they do some distribution of the plates!
Good to see you are making numbers again. Where is the proof of the 200 million shares? Wouldnt that be a classic bash statement?
Just notices that the last BNP documents added 1/20 show it as tested on E.coli, Salmonella and Staphylococcus aureus. Three food borne illnesses. Along with the recent news about a grocery chain I would think it is is pretty safe to say there is a good chance that that is where this batch was headed.
I guess it wont let me post anything close to a link here, just google nanologix business journal and it pops up.
Not much there, but this is an interesting part:
"NanoLogix manufacturers "a few thousand" of these plates per day at its eight workstations, Barnhizer reports."
Easy argument here. Nanologix is a testing and diagnostics company, they were not in the market for new packaging as the packaging they used was the standard in the industry and acceptable. Therefore Barnhizer is within his right to pursue a new packaging system which would not be in conflict with the corporation's main focus(diagnostic testing) .
Also, for all you know, there was a meeting with the board where they approved of this prior to it being developed.
Prior to the development of the FlatPack packaging, the company was focused on BNP and BNF from what we have seen, not traditional petri dishes with the extended shelf life offered.
The assignment would give the company all legal rights to the patent. In this case the licensing deal allegedly does the same thing, but without seeing the actual agreement it would be hard to determine what it means for the company.
Of course, if somebody was to sue over infringement, it would appear that the only party involved would be the owner of the patent (Barnhizer) and not a licensing company who had no idea there was an infringement issue (or so they would say)
At my old job, upon hiring, I was required to sign a disclaimer saying that anything I invented while working for the company and using their resources was to be assigned to them and I had no rights to it. If I was to invent something using my own resources and time while at home, it belonged to me.
There is NOTHING that says that such an agreement is implied or even standard in business for other companies.
While it would be upsetting if Bret used the company resources and time to secure a patent for himself, there is nothing inherently wrong with it assuming that an agreement such as that as aforementioned was never put into place.
It is my suspicion that such an agreement does in fact exist, however it is directed towards the detection methods and apparatuses that may be invented while working for NanoLogix, not basic packaging, since that was not the main focus of the company.
It is disappointing to see a CEO who works for a company, but chooses to keep his business life somewhat separate from the company itself, however there is likely nothing wrong with it.
To claim that he would have come up with the FlatPack idea whether he was employed by NanoLogix or not is pretty hard to believe, but I am sure that is the basis behind the assignment of the patent.
Another option is that he was given the ownership as some sort of compensation, instead of more stock.
Yet another option is that he decided that he came up with this idea on his own and drafted it himself so he is entitled to complete ownership, but like I said before, that is not how a CEO should look at his company.