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