I believe you're correct- that this was a name tra

I believe you're correct- that this was a name trademark and not a patent on the technology. But it's not necessarily a bad thing. They have made a conscious choice not to patent and have developed their process around protecting their intellectual property. It has been well thought out. JN discussed this very point at the RI Conference. He was asked why the process was not patented. He explained that a patent does you no good unless a company has the resources and unlimited funds to protect it and to threaten and go after any poachers- especially in other countries such as those very Asian markets we're looking at. He explained that, initially, the software was to accompany or actually be in the machine. Identification would be done on site, and it would make for a very simple self contained system. But then they realized that, once a testing party had their hands on the software, they didn't need MIT any more and could duplicate it and even produce their own units. The laser hardware is unique and valuable, but the real prize is the software algorithm, developed by Dr. Haavig that enables one to make an identification using the equipment. The unit is useless without it. Hence, the idea of the cloud system- which exists to address this very problem. Some view this system as having been developed to provide a revenue stream- which it will do. But the real reason is to protect the technology. So- the machine generates the raw data- it is sent to "MIT Central" and then they analyze the raw data with the "Identifiers"- the soft ware- and immediately send back the identification answer via the internet. This still allows for immediate, real time identification- does allow MIT to charge for the procedure- but also keeps the crucial software out of the hands of any unscrupulous customers. And thus- no patent is needed to protect the technology. Quite clever!