From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 07:37:15 2009 Return-Path: <> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on industrial X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-86.6 required=2.4 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_1,AWL, MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,SPF_HELO_PASS,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=disabled version=3.1.8 X-Original-To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Delivered-To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Received: from listserv.albany.edu (unknown [169.226.1.24]) by metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128C848F3D for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by listserv.albany.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1SCLoXH010061 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:39 -0500 From: "University at Albany LISTSERV Server (14.5)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0212D" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Message-ID: Status: RO Content-Length: 48515 Lines: 1094 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 01:00:21 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Paul S LeRoy Subject: Cuprinol or Cupranol MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Has anyone on the list had experience of using either or both of these named products on wooden beekeeping equipment? I ask because I have a beekeepers Co-operative on the Island of St.Kitts in the Caribbean that I am trying to help get started in beekeeping and they have a serious problem with termites in the wet season. Unpainted and untreated wood doesnt make it thru one season. They asked say they have a product known as Cuprinol or Cupranol that came in an unmarked container which does not state the ingredients but state that other beekeepers on adjacent island of Nevis have been using it for ten years. I have gone on the internet and found that there are both Cuprinol and Cupranol. The latter is an oil based solution containing copper or zinc napthanate or both and after extensive search cannot find anything that states the composition of Cuprinol but do know that it is used as an outside wood preservative. The people in St. Kitts are applying it to interior and exterior of all the wooden ware and then painting the exterior surface with an oil based paint. Does anyone on the list have any experience with the above products? Does anyone have any termite experience and any other ways to treat for them that would not be harmful to honeybees? Thanks in advance for any help with this problem. Paul LeRoy-President Lakelands Beekeepers Association-West Central South Carolina. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 14:17:53 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Joe Trattle Subject: Re: Cuprinol or Cupranol In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20021222010021.007debc0@mail.wctel.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cuprinol is a pretty standard treatment for hives here in the UK. >Has anyone on the list had experience of using either or both of these named products on wooden beekeeping equipment? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 25/11/2002 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 10:34:45 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter John Keating Subject: Re: Cuprinol MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I used Cuprinol whilst keeping bees in Eire but we never applied it to the inside surfaces of the hive. Here in Canada I use Copper II on bottom boards and pallets. Could you explain how and where you apply it, and how long you leave it to "air" before using the equipment. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Trattle" Subject: Re: [BEE-L] Cuprinol or Cupranol > Cuprinol is a pretty standard treatment for hives here in the UK. > > > >Has anyone on the list had experience of using either or both of these > named products on wooden beekeeping equipment? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 11:53:21 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: BEE-L Digest - 20 Dec 2002 to 21 Dec 2002 (#2002-347) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 22/12/02 06:20:35 GMT Standard Time, LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU writes: << Not to worry, all this fellow has "patented" is a specific VERSION of a screened bottom board, one that: a) Is also a base for the hive as a whole b) Has "entrances" cut into a solid front surface >> This sounds exactly like the ones I have been making and using for several years. The entrance slot is about a quarter of an inch high and so also serves as a mouse guard. There are also guides so one can slide a drawer under the screen to check on the mite drop over a period of time. Can I claim priority? If so I shall waive all patent rights and make it free to the World. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:55:03 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Juandefuca Subject: Re: SCREENED BOTTOM BOARDS Just a another comment . The original screend bottom Boards has been in my use since May or June 1999 and the second version immediately after Apimondia in Vancouver BC / Ca in Sept 99. Prior to these dates another design for the same purpose is / was explained at a French web site . According to other reliable sources reports the use of and the results of the use were 5 years in the making prior to 1999. Another source found on the internet tells of Danish beekeepers having used this idea since 40 years . Insofar the Britsh design , called "open mesh floor" is in action I am not aware of. I do not appreciate anyone to seek the credit for something which she/he had no part in designing and having the gull to try to patent an by now ancient idea. But then again ; It's not my money spent for nothing. In any case these boards certainly have their use and advantages over and above the detrimental influence of varroa propagation. Jdf ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 23:35:57 -0500 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: SCREENED BOTTOM BOARDS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Juandefuca said: > I do not appreciate anyone to seek the credit for something which > she/he had no part in designing and having the gull to try to patent an by > now ancient idea. At risk of being repetitive, the person who was granted the patent made NO CLAIM on the basic idea of a screened bottom board, and clearly acknowledged the developments prior to the patent application. All that was patented was a screened bottom board with SPECIFIC FEATURES. Those specific features, as applied to a screened bottom board are really all that was "patented". It seems unfair to accuse someone of "seeking credit" when they did a more than adequate job (as is required in any patent application) of giving credit where credit is due, at least to prior patents. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:17:30 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: SCREENED BOTTOM BOARDS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All SBB or Open Mesh Floors as we call them in UK have been known about, experimented with and discussed for more than a century... I am of the opinion that they were first thought of around 1890 in New York State in USA. I personally have been using them for 21 years, and I have used various methods of construction... The design as patented sounds the same as versions that are commonly used in UK and have been for many years. The American practice of using a screen on top of a solid floor or bottom board seems to me a waste of time and materials. If you wish to store a solid board while a mesh one is in place do it in a stack that just contains them. I think that anyone that actually bothers to experiment with them will find that they never want to return to the solid variety, particularly those that live in cold areas. However they will not work well with any secondary entrance (no matter how small) at the top of the hive. Best Regards & 73s... Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website... http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 08:25:56 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Medhat Nasr, Ph. D." Subject: Re: Transfer of Antibiodic Effectiveness from China to Americas and Europe Comments: To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jim Said: "Maybe Europe will start testing honey from the US and Canada next. Maybe they will find the residues from beekeepers washing their hands with anti-bacterial soap before loading the uncapper" I am not kidding. I sent some honey samples for analysis in Europe. We found traces of soap. When I discussed this issue with the beekeeper who sent the sample, I found that he used soap to clean his drums and He did not do a good job rinsing his drums. Medhat Medhat Nasr, Ph. D. Provincial Apiculturist Pest Risk Management Unit Crop Diversification Centre North RR 6, 17507 Fort Road Edmonton, AB, Canada T5B 4K3 Tel: (780) 415-2314 Fax: (780) 422-6096 Mailto:medhat.nasr@gov.ab.ca ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:30:27 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Karen Oland Subject: Re: SCREENED BOTTOM BOARDS Comments: To: jfischer@supercollider.com In-Reply-To: <01C2AA12.E26CF580.jfischer@supercollider.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James, I read most of the patent application (I didn't bother with most of the prior art, after reading the first and getting info on how to kill mites using chemicals dissolved in acetone and a second that explained how to collect bee venom using electricity -- looks like he cited anything that mentioned bees, mites and probably hives, whether relevant or not). It seems that the author was claiming that his design allowed a full screen with no edging to block mites at the edges as an innovation of his design (yes, he claimed quite a bit and had a very elaborate, bulky setup that I doubt anyone would really want to use). So, if you market a SBB with that feature (most do not), that could possibly be an infringement. He also claims that being able to monitor mites from the rear is an innovation (clearly not, this has been commercially available from before his application) and some elaborate internal design that prevents mites from climbing back up on the bees (which I really could not decipher from the application). But, as reading the citations will clearly demonstrate, you can patent just about anything (I'll have to track down a commercially available magnetic varroa remover -- surely that one has caught on -- or a bee hive heater to kill the mites). And has clearly happened in the computing industry, many patents have been issued for public domain information that is much older than the patent application (after all, you are responsible for declaring all prior art and that is all that is checked by the patent clerks, esp. in more obscure or technical fields), resulting in absurdities such as patents for methods of sorting in computer programs that had been taught to students for many years. And such patents will stand until someone undertakes the expense of protesting (basically a trial process and expensive). That is one reason that those holding patents in the computer field only attempt to extort royalties from small companies, where it is cheaper to pay than to fight the patent. On the other hand, I doubt those that have patented bee equipment are living the life of luxury (admit it, have you paid a royalty to the gentleman that patented using a grid on the sticky board to detect mites?). > -----Original Message----- > From: James Fischer > All that was patented was a screened bottom board with SPECIFIC > FEATURES. Those specific features, as applied to a screened > bottom board are really all that was "patented". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:32:18 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Cuprinol MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Beware of Cuprinol. There are several formulations available. Some are suitable for use on beehives and some contain insecticides and so are not. Read the label. Twice. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 12:02:09 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Les Dodd Subject: Re: Cuprinol As it happens I just spoke to Cuprinol here in the UK about use with bees. I asked about Cuprinol Clear and Cuprinol Green. They said that treat the wood as per the instructions on the can and allow six weeks "airing" time before installing the livestock (thats both products). The web addres is "http://www.cuprinol.co.uk" and they have some info on line but I couldn't find any Bee related so I rang them and got a very good response the info was given to me within a couple of minutes. TTFN Les ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:28:26 -0500 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: SCREENED BOTTOM BOARDS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The number of posts on this thread prompted me to ask my legal beagles earn their retainer this month. Here is what the senior partner in one of the best intellectual property firms on the planet says about the "screened bottom board patent". He knows that I am posting this, so I am required to say that: "these comments are NOT legal advice. Each and every party to any potential action should seek counsel specific to his or her concerns from an attorney who knows the details of his/her situation." Understand that he has a highly-developed sense of humor, so when you see [*****] before and after a line, this means that he was joking with me in that line. =========================================================== Jim: There appear to be only two points that might be described as actual innovations amongst all the claims made: The first innovation would be the integration of individual items that existed in the prior art into a single unit. The "integration" would be the combining of what you label a "hive stand", what you label a "bottom board" and what you label a "screen bottom" into a single unit. The second innovation would be the cutting of bee entrances into the front of the "hive stand", but this would be a natural result of the integration described in my preceding sentence, given that the entrance is nothing more than the gap at the front of the bottom board, or the gap at the front of the "screen bottom" when one is used. Even these two claims could be subject to challenge on a basis of a statutory bar if there was US publication, public use, or sale of similar items that included these specific features more than one year prior to the date of the patent application at issue. The anticipatory events that would defeat a claim of novelty would have to occur at least one day prior to the patent application date of March 3, 2000, and could include a prior patent application, printed publication, knowledge (or unabandoned unsuppressed, unconcealed invention) by others, use by others, or description in another filed and subsequently granted patent application. The application date of March 3, 2000 does not pre-date the 01/18/200 publication of the USDA article you sent "Beltsville Screen Insert Curbs Bee Mites". [ He means http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2000/000118.htm ] This article bears careful examination, since it is a compelling case of a US government agency placing innovation into the public domain, and significant potential anticipatory event. The article describes a physical device that seems to match your photo # 4 and sketch #1 exactly. The article also states that the device was "already being sold in the Brushy Mountain beekeeping supply catalog" at the time of publication, so whatever device was listed in this catalog is exempt from, or take priority over, any claims made by the patent holder, as would any sketches, photos, or recollection of anyone who saw the USDA devices in use. The extent of prior art seems to indicate that the patent at issue may have problems in the area of "obviousness". Your sketch #2 indicates that someone at the USDA could have created a device very similar to what was patented with nothing more than a tube of glue. By gluing hive stand, bottom board, and screen board together, one has essentially all the utility that is claimed in the patent. As a result, there would appear to be no basis for any claim made against your use of a device copied from that described by the USDA and/or advertised and sold by Brushy. Further, there appears to be some confusion over the use of the term "beehive". The patent appears to address nothing but an integration of the 3 lowest parts of a beehive, what you label as "hive stand", "bottom board", and "screen board", but the applicant uses the term "beehive" to describe his innovation so often, it gives the impression that the patent is for a new form of beehive. Could you keep bees in the device as described? Apparently not very many bees, since all the beehives in your photo #8 are as tall or taller than you. Here's the claim breakdown. Text from the patent is normal text. My comments are in all caps: I claim: 1. A beehive comprising: a bottom board THIS IS MORE THAN A "BOTTOM BOARD", CORRECT? THIS APPEARS TO BE A MODIFIED "HIVE STAND". YOUR EXPLODED DIAGRAM SHOWS "HIVE STAND" AND "BOTTOM BOARD" AS TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS, BUT YOUR PHOTOS ALL SHOW HIVES WITH "HIVE STANDS" REPLACED BY CINDERBLOCKS. IF YOU DON'T USE A "HIVE STAND" AT ALL, THIS PATENT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO INFRINGE. ADDITIONALLY, WE DON'T SEE A "BEEHIVE" HERE. WE SEE A BASE FOR A BEEHIVE. IS THIS CORRECT, OR IS THE APPLICANT DESCRIBING A COMPLETE BEEHIVE? comprising upstanding walls; "UPSTANDING WALLS" IS DESCRIPTIVE ONLY. [*****] ALL WALLS STAND UP. IF NOT, THEY WOULD BE MORE ACCURATELY DESCRIBED AS "FLOORS" IN THE OPINION OF THIS FIRM. [*****] and a screen permanently installed in said bottom board AGAIN, DESCRIPTIVE ONLY - MOST "SCREEN BOTTOMS" APPEAR TO BE A SCREEN STAPLED OR NAILED TO WOOD, OR GLUED BETWEEN TWO LAYERS OF WOOD. THE "NOVELTY" APPEARS TO BE LIMITED TO AN INTEGRATED "HIVE STAND", "ENTRANCE", AND "SCREEN BOTTOM". wherein said screen covers the entire expanse between said upstanding walls there being such that there is no rim or framework on said bottom board onto which mites can land from which the mites can scale said upstanding walls and re-infest bees in said beehive. THE ABOVE APPEARS TO BE ERROR IN THE PATENT APPLICATION. A LACK OF A "RIM" APPEARS IN PRIOR ART, IF YOUR DIMENSIONED SKETCHES ARE CORRECT. YOUR "SCREEN BOARD" IS SHOWN WITH THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS YOUR "HIVE BODY", WHICH MATCHES THE RAISED SURFACE PROVIDED BY YOUR "BOTTOM BOARD". PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THESE DIMENSIONS ARE ACCURATE FOR THE CIRCA 2000 USDA AND BRUSHY VERSIONS OF THE DEVICE. 2. The beehive as set forth in claim 1 further comprising: a removable sub-board; PRIOR ART APPEARS TO INCLUDE THIS AS A CONCEPT, SO PERHAPS THE CLAIM IS AN "INTEGRATED" REMOVABLE SUB-BOARD, PART OF A "HIVE STAND". YOUR NOTES SAY THAT THE "STICKY-BOARD" IS EITHER ADHESIVE SHELF PAPER OR CARDBOARD, SO THERE MAY BE AN UNSTATED CLAIM THAT A WOODEN SUB-BOARD IS AN INNOVATION. IT WOULD BE VERY WEAK IF SUBJECTED TO A TEST OF OBVIOUSNESS. And rear access means located sufficiently distant from a location at which bees enter and exit said beehive to remove said removable sub-board without intruding upon the entrance and exit of the bees. PRIOR ART APPARENTLY INCLUDES THIS FEATURE, BUT PERHAPS NOT OVERTLY, SINCE THE SKETCHES YOU SENT REQUIRE THE BEEKEEPER TO TURN AROUND HIS "EXISTING BOTTOM BOARD" BEFORE HE SETS THE SCREEN ASSEMBLY ON TOP. AGAIN, INTEGRATION APPEARS TO BE THE SOLE INNOVATION HERE. 3. The beehive as set forth in claim 2 wherein said rear access means comprises a sub-board entry slot at a location opposite to that at which bees enter said beehive. THIS REPEATS (2). 4. The beehive as set forth in claim 3 wherein said bottom board further comprises a front wall having bee entry slots therein, a rear wall and two side walls and said rear access means further comprises sub-board receiving slots in said side walls. THE "BEE ENTRY IN THE HIVE STAND" CLAIM ABOVE APPEARS TO BE A REASONABLE INNOVATION. DO YOU KNOW OF ANY PRIOR ART? 5. The beehive as set forth in claim 4 wherein said sub-board comprises a sticky sub-board. AGAIN, PERHAPS THE CLAIM IS THE INTEGRATION OF THE "STICKY SUB-BOARD" WITH THE "HIVE STAND". 6. A beehive comprising: a bottom board; and a removable sticky sub-board having a perimeter enclosing means preventing re-attachment of mites to bees, said removable sticky sub-board comprising an unbridgeable gap of a sticky trapping substance forming a perimeter around said sticky sub-board. THIS MAY ALSO BE A REASONABLE "INNOVATION", BUT IF MORE THAN THE "STICKY BOARD" IS "STICKY", THE METHOD OF APPLICATION OF STICKY SUBSTANCES STARTS TO GET CLOSE TO "PROCESS", UNLESS THERE IS A RECEPTACLE OR SPECIFIC SURFACE DESIGNED FOR THE "STICKY STUFF". [*****] ALTERNATIVELY, THE APPLICANT APPEARS TO CLAIM TO HAVE INVENTED AN OBJECT THAT HAS AN UNBRIDGEABLE GAP AROUND ITSELF, WHICH MAY BE A SIGNIFICANT ADVANCE IN THE FIELD OF TOPOLOGY. THE POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS FOR "UNBRIDGEABLE GAPS" WOULD BE MANY IN THESE TIMES OF THREATS FROM TERRORISTS. EVEN MORESO IF THEY ARE "STICKY" ENOUGH TO HOLD THE TERRORISTS UNTIL THE POLICE ARRIVE. [*****] 7. The beehive as set forth in claim 6 wherein said perimeter enclosing means is formed by a perimeter rim comprising a front member, two side members, and a rear member. THIS IS SPECIOUS - IT HAS 4 SIDES. ALL PARTS OF BEEHIVES APPEAR TO HAVE 4 SIDES. 8. The beehive as set forth in claim 7 wherein said bottom board further comprises upstanding walls and said beehive further comprises a screen permanently installed in said bottom board, said screen covering the entire expanse between said upstanding walls. THE SKETCHES AND CATALOG PAGE SCANS YOU SENT SHOW THAT ALL SCREEN BOTTOM PRODUCTS INCLUDE THESE FEATURES. IF THE USDA AND BRUSHY VERSIONS HAD THESE FEATURES, THE CLAIM WOULD BE WEAKENED TO THE POINT OF BEING "ERROR". 9. The beehive as set forth in claim 8 wherein said upstanding walls further comprise a front wall having bee entry slots therein, a rear wall and two side walls. AGAIN, THE BEE ENTRY SLOTS INTEGRATED INTO THE HIVE STAND APPEAR TO BE A REASONABLE "INNOVATION". 10. The beehive as set forth in claim 9 further comprising rear access means to remove said sticky sub-board. REPEATS CLAIM (2). 11. The beehive as set forth in claim 10 wherein said rear access means further comprises a rear slot in said rear wall. REPEATS CLAIM (3). 12. The beehive as set forth in claim 11 wherein said perimeter enclosing means further comprises notched members. WE CAN'T SEE WHAT NOTCHES HAVE TO DO WITH ANY OF IT, EXCEPT AS A METHOD OF WOOD JOINERY. IS THERE A BEEKEEPER-SPECIFIC USE OF THE TERM "NOTCHED"? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 11:11:53 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Patent claims on SBB Karen's and Jim's comments are very helpful, especially to those such as myself with little specific knowledge of such areas. This guy 'sounds like' someone who tried his darndest to extort money from us when we introduced the Sundance Pollen Trap. This tool (like the SBB, the Sundance trap is no more or less than a useful tool) was gradually developed over about 15 years before introduction to the general market. It started with some clever design areas by a Canadian, but before being introduced had been changed in so many ways that it was almost unrecognizable from the original. I believed then, and now, that at least two of those changes were patentable but decided not to do so for reasons I will explain later. As soon as advertising started on the Sundance trap I got a letter claiming prior patent and copyright. I have long ago thrown away all the correspondence, but it sounded suspiciously like that now being sent to dealers for the SBB. (It may be the same guy.) Initially I ignored the claims. After about the third letter, I responded pointing our the origin of the Sundance trap, some of the changes since (including the years the changes were made), and how it differed from that described in his claims. In conclusion, I said "if you still feel we are infringing, you have the ultimate remedy available to you, and I will see you in court". I was reasonably certain that all he wanted was a payment to 'go away', and I was not going to give him that. I never heard from him again. Why did we not patent our two most important innovations? Someone a lot smarter than I once told me "all a patent does is give you a basis on which to sue". That is very true, and suits are very expensive...as are patents. I was once President of a company whose very existence depended on some six patents, and those easily cost us in the neighborhood of $1 million to register in 'most' of the world! Patents also require that one discloses the 'art', and sometimes this amounts to an open invitation to find a 'work around'. I've seen it happen, and the work around was so good it completely wiped out the original product that was patented. In some industries the combination of high patent costs and required disclosures are resulting in companies relying on 'trade secrets' to maintain product uniqueness and market share. A good move, IMHO. I certainly hope no dealer succumbs to this guys demands. Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner of Ross Rounds, manufacturer of comb honey equipment for beekeepers and Sundance pollen traps. http://www.rossrounds.com Lloyd@rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 12:10:32 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Subject: Re: Radiation treatment of AFM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks, Jim. That was a great explanation. I guess I should have known all that, but it's been a long time... > Electrons - These are the lightest common particle that one cheaply isolate, and they clearly will do "less damage" than neutrons or protons. E-Beam >>>WILL<<< kill bacteria, like AFB... > Everything Else - Anything else is MUCH more massive than an electron... The effect on wood is simply a scaled-down version of what would happen if you started shooting bullets at a sheet of plywood. At some point, the wood turns into "swiss cheese", and falls apart under its own weight. >> ...I've asked the guys who use electron beam and they say they don't see any >> ill effects. > Well, a neutron is about 1837 times as massive as an electron, so it would be more than a thousand times "more damaging" at equal velocity. > Me: "OK, you have E=hv .... so what's 'h'"? > Max: "Planck's Constant". > Me: "Right... and what's 'v'?" > Max: "The length of the plank?" At least he wasn't bored. A Planck namesake? At any rate, I noticed also that Trevor wrote: >>> Combs that have not been extracted cannot be irradiated as the honey "explodes" and when sending honey for irradiation, <<< He does not mention what form of radiation is used where he is. The reports here -- using electron beam -- are that honey merely foams out a bit. I haven't seen it, so maybe someone who has done electron beam sterlization can comment further, but I wonder if the Auzzies are using something else. A neighbour of mine had a cobalt radiation facility in Utah in mind, since penetration is apparently much better using that type of radiation, but distance and border problems caused him to decide on the electron beam plant in Port Coquitlam B.C. It was a good choice. The results have been spectacular, with remarkably solid brood patterns resulting on irradiated comb -- even scaled combs. With electron beam, the amounty of honey in combs going in is necessarily limited, since the density of honey in combs limits penetration and casts a 'shadow'. This is the main reason given for limiting the honey in combs going into the beam, but apparently there can be some problem with honey running. Therefore the beekeepers use cardboard boxes to protect the conveyer from bits of wax falling out and from any honey dripping. I understand that the boxes last five trips or so, then are replaced since they get soggy and dog-eared. The radiation facility is very fussy and will not tolerate any spills or mess, since they do medical instruments and other clean items as well as the occasional truckload of bee boxes. allen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 16:38:11 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Rodney Angell Subject: cleaning observation hive In-Reply-To: Automatic digest processor 's message of Sat, 16 Nov 2002 00:00:33 -0500 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) would anybody know of any good solvents to clean the wax off the plastic windows of my observation hive? Something that won't damage the plexi-glass or hurt the bees. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 11:24:09 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Karen Oland Subject: Re: SCREENED BOTTOM BOARDS Comments: To: jfischer@supercollider.com In-Reply-To: <01C2AACA.3BA797B0.jfischer@supercollider.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Both patents 1,854,871 and 5,741,170 appear to have entrances cut into the wall of the hive (a solid surface), although both are large and covered with screens (it appears). At least one other patent (4,981,458 ) shows permanent slits in the bottom board (added using strips, not cutouts in solid wood). Not exactly the same (none claim that the entrance area is in the hive stand), but similar enough to possibly argue abviousness. I thought I saw something exactly like his slots in a hive stand in an earlier search, but did not locate it in a quick search today. > -----Original Message----- > From: James Fischer's attorney friend > 9. The beehive as set forth in claim 8 wherein said upstanding walls > further comprise a front wall having bee entry slots therein, a rear > wall and two side walls. > > AGAIN, THE BEE ENTRY SLOTS INTEGRATED INTO THE HIVE STAND APPEAR > TO BE A REASONABLE "INNOVATION". ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 08:25:37 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Tim Arheit Subject: Re: Radiation treatment of AFM In-Reply-To: <002301c2ab80$23231320$3051fea9@Pegasus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I've contacted Titan Scan (The owner of the irradiation facility in Lima, OH) to see if that is something they would do. And more importantly, the price, because it's a moot point if it's not cost effective. I've included the response I've had so far because it contains some useful information. Hopefully I will have more after the first of the year. -Tim Arheit ------------------------------ Dear Tim, Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Michael Stern, and I am Director, Technological Applications, here at Titan Scan Technologies. Your questions have been routed to my attention. Thank you for your inquiry. Titan Scan Technologies was incorporated in 1991, bringing together linear accelerator technology designed by the Titan Corporation and experts in the field of medical device sterilization. Titan is now the recognized leader in medical device sterilization utilizing electron beam. As the company has grown, the mix of markets being served has expanded to include food products, pharmaceuticals, consumer goods and most recently, during the anthrax crisis, the United States mail. Titan Scan Technologies owns and operates four Contract Services Centers in the US, including the one located in Lima, OH. These Service Centers are ISO 9002, EN 46002 and EN 552 certified. In addition to owning and operating Contract Service Centers, the company builds electron beam systems for any manufacturer or group of manufacturers who may wish to own or co-own their own sterilization facility. While I am not familiar with the Australian irradiation protocols for sanitizing of beekeping equipment, we are aware of this practice being in place in Canada. Studies by the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food have established that application of a 10 kiloGrays (kGy) dose of irradiation kills in excess of 99% of AFB spores and makes combs safe for bees to rear healthy brood. Additionally, it is our understanding that dried, milled pollen is also being treated by EB in Canada, at dose levels of 8-10 kGy, to destroy AFB and chalkbrood spores. Based on the studies conducted in 1984 by the USDA on other EB equipment, we estimate that the high energy (10 MeV) of the horizontal beam at our Lima, OH facility would be able to penetrate roughly 5 empty frames of comb arranged vertical to the beam. Decontamination of greater than twice that depth would be possible by 2-sided irradiation. To further explore the possibilities and costs of irradiating beekeeping equipment at our Lima Contract Services Center, I am going to put you in touch with Peter French, one of our Business Development Managers, who is responsible for the Lima facility. I have copied him on this e-mail, and he will follow up with you after the first of the year. In the meantime, if you have any additional technical questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me directly. For additional details regarding EB treatment of beekeeping equipment in Canada, you may want to review the following article: Don Nelson, Kerry Clark, and Adony Melathopoulos; "Electron Beam Irradiation: A New Option for Bee Disease Management" Hivelights, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 10-12 (2002). Best regards, Michael Stern ---------------------------------------------------- Michael Stern Director, Technological Applications Titan Scan Technologies 9020 Activity Rd, Suite E San Diego, CA 92126 USA Tel: (800) 359-9700 x2074 Fax: (443) 331-1492 Mobile: (215) 932-9357 E-Mail: mstern@titan.com www.titanscan.com/aam ---------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 20:11:01 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Paul Cronshaw, D.C." Subject: Honey Super warmer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" I am looking for plans to build a honey super warmer. I remember seeing one referenced many years ago that was made out of an old 9 5/8's super and some light bulbs. Would appreciate a source for this. Thanks -- Paul Cronshaw, D.C. Hobbyist Beekeeper Santa Barbara, CA USA This material is presented for private discussion, research and educational purposes only. Do not publish, broadcast or otherwise distribute this material without prior written authority. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 07:26:09 -0500 Reply-To: OhioBeeFarmer Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: OhioBeeFarmer Subject: Re: cleaning observation hive MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I use a boat fiberglass hull cleaner. It does a nice job getting the surface clean and removing fine scratches. OhioBeeFarmer Getting Kids Involved in 4H Beekeeping www.homestead.com/BeeKeepers/ www.homestead.com/BeeKeepers/BeesRUs.html Subject: [BEE-L] cleaning observation hive Something that won't damage the plexi-glass or hurt the bees. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 08:45:41 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Honey Super warmer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Paul & All, Paul asked: I am looking for plans to build a honey super warmer. I remember seeing one referenced many years ago that was made out of an old 9 5/8's super and some light bulbs. Would appreciate a source for this. Thanks I believe the plans you are looking for were published in the November 1969 Gleanings in BEE Culture. Very simple to make and using a 40 watt bulb raised the temp of the honey to 85 degrees F. throughout the stack. Higher temps. were had using higher watt bulbs. The American Bee Journal published an article about a "honey dryer" on the same principal but used two Hot-watt aluminum sheath heaters in January of 1983. Sincerely, Bob Harrison -- Paul Cronshaw, D.C. Hobbyist Beekeeper Santa Barbara, CA USA This material is presented for private discussion, research and educational purposes only. Do not publish, broadcast or otherwise distribute this material without prior written authority. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:41:48 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Janet Montgomery Subject: Re: cleaning observation hive MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I have used mineral spirits followed buy 409 and Windex DO NOT USE LAQUER THINNER AR RELATED PRODUCTS Dan Veilleux Vilas, NC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 10:52:48 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Cleaning glass of observation hive IMHO, by far the best method of getting the wax off the glass and restoring the finish to original is to use hot vegetable oil. Any brand. HOT, but not burning. Wear gloves and use a sponge. The vegetable oil emulsifies the wax, removing it without a trace. Plain soap and water will remove any traces of the oil. Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner of Ross Rounds, manufacturer of comb honey equipment for beekeepers and Sundance pollen traps. http://www.rossrounds.com Lloyd@rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:31:01 +1100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Rob Rowman Subject: RADIATION Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary MIME-Version: 1.0 The radiation source in the facility in Sydney Australia is Cobalt 60 producing gamma radiation. Hive equipment is treated at 15 kilograys. A previous comment on this topic suggested that all AFB infected combs should be burnt. With the above level of irradiation AFB spores are sufficiently loosened for bees to be able to remove the scales. Therefore the frames can be retained for further use. The heat and irradiation treatment causes any honey residue to run out of the boxes and make things very messy. All hive equoipment and frames have to be free from honey & double bagged or stretched wrapped. Rob Bowman Sydney ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:35:01 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jean-Marie Van Dyck Subject: Re: Cleaning glass of observation hive In-Reply-To: <003a01c2adc0$029a7c00$0e256118@nycap.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >IMHO, by far the best method of getting the wax off the glass and restoring >the finish to original is to use hot vegetable oil. Any brand. HOT, but >not burning. Wear gloves and use a sponge. The vegetable oil emulsifies >the wax, removing it without a trace. Plain soap and water will remove any >traces of the oil. I put glasses well scraped at the razor blade (cutter without handle) in the dishwasher. They leave there very clean. If there are to big :( ... use (with gloves) dishwasher soap, hot water and green sponge. Season greetings Jean-Marie Van Dyck ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 13:09:53 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Cleaning glass of observation hive MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This message was originally submitted by john.howe@EARTHLINK.NET to the BEE-L list at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU. It was edited to remove quotes of previously posted material. ----- Original message (ID=1D2F6872) (46 lines) ------- From: "John Howe" To: "Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology" Subject: Re: [BEE-L] Cleaning glass of observation hive Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 11:48:17 -0500 Lloyd-- You say "wax off the glass". Does this apply to plexi as well? John Howe ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 11:33:05 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "adrian m. wenner" Subject: Re: Honey Super warmer In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Hi, Paul. You inquired over BEE-L: >I am looking for plans to build a honey super warmer. I remember >seeing one referenced many years ago that was made out of an old 9 >5/8's super and some light bulbs. Would appreciate a source for >this. Thanks Sometime in the distant past, someone recommended an old and large refrigerator with a light bulb inside. It seems that such a rig would work, but one should have a thermostat control to make sure the temperature would not get too high. Adrian -- Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home office phone) 967 Garcia Road wenner@lifesci.ucsb.edu Santa Barbara, CA 93103 www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm **************************************************************************** * * "T'is the majority [...that] prevails. Assent, and you are sane * Demur, you're straightway dangerous, and handled with a chain." * * Emily Dickinson, 1862 * **************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 18:58:52 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Honey super warmer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have used light bulbs under a stack of supers with a blanket over the top for insulation but have had trouble with hot spots. This year I made the happy discovery that the insulated box with a thermostatically controlled heating cable that I use for warming buckets of honey and other things is just the right size to sit supers on. The heat is well diffused by the time it gets to the supers. A digital thermometer with a remote sensor placed in the stack allows me to see what the temperature is in that position and adjust the thermostat by trial and error. Chris