[StevenG]

Allen, I looked at that first one, briefly.

For example, in one lengthly part of it, they discuss Mega Bee quite extensively. Are they trying to patent Mega Bee, or patent the various ways of mixing and preparing Mega Bee for use?

I realize that's an oversimplification, and I need to read that application at length, but....
Regards,
Steven

 

[c10250]

You need to look to the CLAIMS section to see what they are CLAIMING as their invention. The other stuff is just enablment.

 

[StevenG]

Ok, I'm just an ignorant layman when it comes to this sort of stuff, so please bear with me. I looked at the claims section in that first patent link. Seems like they're claiming two different diets, with some very general compositions to those diets. No "trade name" for marketing purposes is put forth, just a general diet that almost any beekeeper is already doing in his/her kitchen, or purchasing somewhere. Nothing is nailed down.

That's your point, isn't it? if so, where do we complain? :scratch:
And if they get this patent, how would that impact the supplements already on the market?
Regards,
Steven

 

[c10250]

HERE IS A VERY SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF THE PROCESS. A LOT IS LEFT OUT, BUT . . .

During the patent process, a patent application is filed with a CLAIM set that defines the invention. Usually, the initial claim is quite broad, and is narrowed down during the prosecution phase. This process usually involves the USPTO examiner finding prior references (prior art) and invalidating the CLAIMS. The applicant is given a chance to narrow the scope of the claims and resubmit.

This process may go around and around until either the patent issues with the narrow claims, or the application is abandoned. It seems that this application was filed in the United States in 2007, and has yet to issue. It also seems that the inventor filed an international application on his idea as well. (WTO)

Here is the first claim:

An artificial diet formulation suitable for rearing bees, comprising:

about 20-80% protein derived from at least two sources including corn gluten, about 1-7% lipid derived from at least two sources including corn gluten, and about 10-90% carbohydrate.


Ken
(Patent Attorney and Bee Keeper)
Also, it's sad that I have to say this, but please don't take any of this as legal advice. If you truly have a question about any patent, it's best to see a patent attorney.

 

[Allen Dick]

> about 20-80% protein derived from at least two sources including corn gluten, about 1-7% lipid derived from at least two sources including corn gluten, and about 10-90% carbohydrate.

Does that not sound like just about any protein supplement on the market? (Except for the corn gluten part, perhaps. But what is so special about corn gluten except, perhaps price?)

Hardly novel or unique.

 

[Tom G. Laury]

I have heard a story that once someone applied for and received a patent on the wheelbarrow, then received royalties for a period of time. I don't know if that is actually true or not though.

 

[loggermike]

It would seem to be unenforceable. I have been 'fooling ' with pollen sub recipes for over thirty years, and I think the idea goes back to the 1800s.
So, unless someone was duplicating the patented formula exactly (unlikely) how could it be a problem?
Didn't Langstroth patent his beehive? A lot of good that did him.

 

[bhfury]

So, unless someone was duplicating the patented formula exactly (unlikely) how could it be a problem?
Didn't Langstroth patent his beehive? A lot of good that did him.

I think Loggermike is exactly right....

I see it's MegaBee?