BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0 (1.0)
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date:
Tue, 7 Oct 2014 09:05:21 -0700
Reply-To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: Reverently Bowing Our Heads, Let Us Spray
From:
Todd A Bebb <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
<[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Sender:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines) 
Thank you for making this statement Randy. 

Why is this research data so well veiled? They claim it is due to trade secrets. 

In the case of the current reevaluation of neonics by CA DPR, I would have to think that this reevaluation process could have been sped up with peer review as well as independent research. 

How does Patent law work into this equation? When the registrants receive a patent, aren't most trade secrets disclosed for that product? Why would lab and field research data be any different. 
I am not an attorney and may be wrong in this understanding of patent law. Anyone here know how this works?

TAB Builders & SBBA.ORG

> On Oct 7, 2014, at 5:49 AM, randy oliver <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>  Such
> data should be made freely available to beekeepers and the public.

             ***********************************************
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2