Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : PYNG Technologies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David L. Johnson who wrote (3951)	5/31/1999 5:00:00 PM
From: LOR	Respond to of 8117

Thanks to Doc Johnson for the clarification! Its nice to see PYNG step up to the plate and provide plausible rebutals to hostile and potentially damaging remarks made in the forum. Now, regarding a subject close to many PYNG investor's hearts, would you please advise if you folks still have a few things to do to "fine tune" the design or has the design been finalized as of or before today? Frankly, if it is going to take a few more days, weeks or even a month or two I can live with that but most of us would like to know just so we can keep our "PYNG Progress Charts" up to date. I hope you can further bolster forum investor confidence by reviewing this with us a.s.a.p. Thanks again, LOR

To: David L. Johnson who wrote (3951)	5/31/1999 6:47:00 PM
From: AriKirA	Respond to of 8117

Thank you Dr Johnson for said clarification. Kind Regards Ari

To: David L. Johnson who wrote (3951)	5/31/1999 8:07:00 PM
From: AriKirA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8117

Dr Johnson, Since you are around, would you be nice enough to clarify the following post (said post being mine). I'm sure the clarification will be appreciated by all. While trying to decipher PYT's corporate structure, we ran into some 'murky waters'. Please correct me if I'm wrong in implying the following: PYNG Technologies Inc was incorporated in 1987 under provincial law. PYNG Technologies Inc became PYNG Technologies Corp when it became a reporting issuer (initial public offering done in May, 1988 which corresponds to the 88/05/16 mentioned in the Dun & Bradstreet report included below). PYNG Technologies Corp (PYT), being the parent company, has 2 subsidiaries. Canadian Custom Profiles Ltd and Pyng medical (90%, the other 10% being held by BPI). Now, if PYNG Technologies Inc is PYNG Technologies Corp then why doesn't the following report (which was last updated on 98/12/01) mention Pyng medical as being one of Pyng Technologies Inc's subsidiairies. The following is the Dun & Bradstreet summary mentioned above: 1) PYNG Technologies Corp [which is the parent company trading on the VSE] Business Name: Pyng Technologies Corp D&B D-U-N-S® Number: 25-646-9586 Address: 7983 Progress Way City: DELTA State/Province: British Columbia Country: CANADA Zip/Post Code: V4G 1A3 Telephone: 6049469655 Fax Number: 6049467635 Operating Status: Active Executive(s): Michael Jacobs, President Industry Sector(s): 3841 - Surgical and medical instruments Year Started: 1988 Total Employees: 7 Annual Sales (US$ 000): 372 Annual Sales (Local Currency 530 000) Business Structure: This is a SINGLE Location ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) PYNG Technologies Inc. Same address as the above: a) was last updated by D&B on 98/12/01, b) D&B # 24-725-1390 .......... SIC# 6711 2821 c) public company registered BC law on 88/05/16 d) Employees = 2 e) Subsidiary = Canadian Custom Profiles Ltd of Delta, BC f) Headquarters location g) Operation = holding company ******************************************************************************** The reason why I am asking the following is that without Pyng Medical, Pyng Technologies Corp is almost as good as an empty shell. That brings us to the patents held by Pyng Medical. As noted on Pyng's web site, Pyng Medical Corp. was formed on December 2, 1992 as a B.C. based biomedical joint venture partnership to secure the Worldwide License Agreement of the Board of Regents of the University of California to the Intraosseous Infusion technology and relevant patents. This License was obtained on September 1,1993. Since then Pyng has received its own stand-alone patent for its unique technology and has developed the F.A.S.T.1TM, First Access for Shock and Trauma, the world's first adult intraosseous infusion system. Therefore, am I correct in assuming that Pyng Medical Corp (after having conducted further work) is the sole owner of the following stand alone patents (my take on the above excerpt)? Or is there an agreement between the UoC and Pyng Tech permitting the latter to market and sell devices developed by their "joint venture"? I have not heard of anything in this regard and am of the opinion, after having done my DD, that Pyng Medical is the sole owner of said patents and that Pyng Medical is 90% held by Pyng Tech Corp and 10% held by BPI. In short, I just want to make sure that Pyng Tech Corp will not be paying royalties to any third parties, such as U of C Device : F.A.S.T. 1 Intaosseous Infusion System Initial Patent (5/17/94) patents.uspto.gov Additional Patent Protection (10/6/98)***** patents.uspto.gov. * Pyng medical received vital additional patent protection from the US Patent Office for the FAST 1 Intraosseous Infusion System. The coverage is in addition to patents and trademarks already owned by Pyng Medical on Intraosseous Infusion. Thank you for your patience and your time! Kind Regards Ari

To: David L. Johnson who wrote (3951)	5/31/1999 9:57:00 PM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8117

Dr. Johnson/ Mr. Jacobs Thanks Dr. Johnson for your very informative response regarding the status of field trials and the reasons that the Florida sites are just beginning their own trials which have will have no effect on the final design, mass production or commercialization of the FAST 1. I would appreciate your opinion on the following statement made by A Special One: "Rural Metro (Scottsdale) - the trials will be completed by Dec./Jan. at the earliest. Then state approval will be required for day-to-day use of the product (current approval within the state is for the trial only). ............ Now, if the state adopts it, then rural locations in other states may follow. However, they will each require their respective states approval. So you're probably looking at 3-5 years for complete adoption within Rural. " As I have expressed before state, county, and local medical board approval is an area that I have no experience in and would appreciate your comments on the time frame given for rollout by Rural Metro and any comments you may have on once mass production is achieve how the applicable state/local approval process will work. I would specifically like to know if Pyng has received any state approvals which would allow adoption by the test sites and other customers in the state for day-to-day use. If so which states? Also will Pyng have the sole responsibility for attaining state approvals in all 50 US states or will the customers who want to purchase the product take the lead in getting the approvals. Any information you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks Jack