This really isn't an issue, even if a patent was granted. Whether what the MegaBee group did is a travesty is another matter, which I can discuss at the end. To be patentable, an invention must be novel, non obvious (the meaning of this isn't all that obvious frankly, and the European stipulation of that an invention is obvious if it was "discovered without undue experimentation" is better.) It must also be capable of being reduced to practice. It does not necessarily mean that an invention HAS to be "better" or even commercially viable. Timing of filing an application or a provisional application can affect "novelty" Further, patents broadly are in categories of composition of matter, method (of manufacture etc) and utility. It could be that the use of corn gluten as a obligate protein source is novel. If it is true that a bee diet had not used corn gluten and some or all of the rest before, then that would be "novel" But is it "non - obvious"? Against the background of existing diets for bees, it may be non-obvious, but against the background of corn gluten being a protein source for other livestock, it may well be obvious that without a lot of experimentation, a diet could be formulated with corn gluten. So, does anyone know if indeed a bee feed has been formulated with corn gluten and/or one of a selection of other protein sources before? It may also be that it hinges upon the utility to raise bees. To determine if the diet is suitable for raising bees, likely a lot of experimentation would be required. The relevant experimentation would be in the tinkering with the formula and ratios, not necessarily in the actual feeding trial design. That said "raising" is a pretty low bar As for novelty, the patent was filed Dec 21, 2007. From a newspaper article Feb 14, 2008, it seems the product was on the market since approx July 2007. So it is a matter of examination to determine if anything was disclosed as a result of the sale that compromises this. Not likely. If it is true that there is nothing novel and non obvious in the filing, and there is plenty of prior art, then the patent wont be granted. And so what if a patent was granted? The patent holder would be the only one with the rights to make or have made a bee feed according to the patent. If that is only the method of manufacturing a bee feed with corn gluten and others, and/or the utility of a bee feed with corn gluten and others to improve brood rearing, would that be a huge problem? Only to others wanting to manufacture the exact same thing. MegaBee would still be on the market, the mere fact of it being granted a patent won't in itself make the price go up, and there would still be other competing formulae. That won't change. As to the use of government funds, in fact it is well enshrined in the US that inventions discovered using public funds can and should be made available to private interests to commercialize. This was brought about specifically to avoid having valuable inventions sit on a university or other agency's shelf. See the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, the Stevenson-Wydler Innovation Act of 1980, including one of its amendments, the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 My armchair patent lawyers look at things. Bigger things to worry about I'd say. Greg Hawkins Everton Ontario *********************************************** The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html Access BEE-L directly at: http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L