> If the examiners turn up a "killer" 
> bit of prior art during the examination, 
> the applicant may contest it, modify 
> the contested claim, or throw in the towel.

This WAS true in the US, but is no longer.  Now, we follow the same rule as
the Europeans, where "first to file" wins, regardless of who was "first to
invent".
"Prior art" is now limited to what has been already patented, or at least
submitted for patent approval.  Why do I know?  I am releasing "Fischer's
Nectar Detector(R)" (a portable hive scale that costs less than a bee
package, and can weight each of your hives in seconds each) for the 2015
catalogs this fall to the Authorized Bee-Quick dealers, and the excruciating
patent process is ongoing.  But I sure as heck was "first to file".

> Of note, is that of the large group 
> of beekeepers invited to the Dialog, 
> I was the only one who ever utilized 
> the website that Bayer painstakingly set
> up for us.

I think this says more about concern over those specific non-disclosure
terms than it says about interest in the data.
I don't remember the specifics, but I was advised by the Legal Beagles over
at the Family Office to not accept the terms as offered.
It is more reasonable to assume that others were simple "more prudent", than
to assume that they were "less interested".

There were and still are other avenues to get exactly the same data without
all the draconian Ts&Cs, for example, directly from Dave or Jack for Bayer. 

To be perfectly blunt, I remain willing to accept the summarization of the
data by the researchers as published, unless I see something funny, like a
bell curve skewed way off to one side.  Why would anyone lie about such
things?  Yes, I know that there are conspiracy theorists and wackos out
there. I, like many other people in my field regularly get envelopes in the
mail containing 86-page theses  written in crayon on both sides of lined
ruled newsprint of the sort we used in 3rd grade to learn to write cursive,
claiming to prove that "Einstein was wrong!" or "Schrödinger didn't know the
half of it!", or, worst of all, "Schrödinger was cruel to animals!".  I got
one on "Sacred Geometry" that was so pretty with such lush figures, I
rustled up a publisher for the fellow.  Not a journal, a coffee-table book
publisher.

But no one can be bought as cheaply as the agri-industrial-complex crusaders
want to believe.  More important, no one stays quiet for long about ANY
conspiracy.  There's always a whistleblower. 

Now how about Lu's data at Harvard? Has anyone tried to get that data?  And
if someone did get all that raw data, how might it help someone inject some
reality into the fairy tales and press-release whirlwind?  Sometimes, even
the simplest facts can't be "sold" to overcome the arc of the storyline the
press WANTS to write.



	

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