RE: "the results seem to indicate that kblb couldnt go commercial without patents in place?..."
Read my posts Friday. I explained in considerable detail that the provisional patent application that KBLB did in September 2010 was both necessary and sufficient for commercialization activity (talking to prospective buyers etc) to proceed and that the patent process had to be maintained within time limits to retain the priority date established by the filing of the provisional patent. (AND that that priority date applies to the international (PCT) patent as well as to the US patent.) So your implication that commercialization was (at any time following the Sept 2010 CC and application) being held up because of waiting for patent action is just plain wrong.
Note that there are very good reasons for delaying the patent actions, so long as doing so does not hold up anything else (as I have already explicitly detailed.) That means that IT IS THE VERY COMMON** for patent action to happen just before certain events. That not because the event had been held up awaiting patent action, but that the patent action had been delayed until the event because it was advantageous to delay the patent action until the upcoming event made it necessary.
The sept 2010 application needed to be done before the CC AND WAS. It may well have included the platform worm concept as well.
IMHO it's likely that the reason that the PCT application needed to be filed before the upcoming CC is that either (or both)
1) to make additions concerning the Monster Silk worm work to insure that protection is up to date.
and/or 2)to include or update the platform worms that were NOT discussed at the CC last year (but could have been on the application* and WERE mentioned at the CC in June). [[Whether or not that could be included on the patent application last year and still retain the same priority date is far from simple and depends of exactly what was in that application and exactly what the "platform worm" covers. None of us has sufficient information to be certain about that, IMHO.
There are other possible reasons why ND/KBLB might have felt it necessary to get the PCT application in before the upcoming CC (and to do it that way rather than starting a new and separate application for the platform worm work. The original application may very well have included enough information about the platform worm to justify it's inclusion in that patent but more work may have been done subsequently that needs to be protected before the CC.
BOTTOM LINE: there is no reason whatsoever for interpreting this recent application as an indication that commercialization activity would in any way whatsoever have been blocked by it's not being done previously.
ALL of the speculation here about the lack of patent action "holding up" commercialization activity had been just plain dead wrong. Certain patent action needed to be done before certain events, but it could have been done AT ANY TIME and there is no evidence whatsoever that any events were delayed by it. ALL indications are that when patent action was needed to be done before an event it was done and was done in a timely manner and that no delay whatsoever was caused by its timing.
I do hope that makes if sufficiently clear!
So MUCH speculation, so LITTLE (if ANY) substance!
* NOTE that kim did drop some hints about the platform worm concept last year in some of the videotapes although at the time we had no idea what he might be alluding to. Clearly they were thinking in that direction already at that time.
** When a patent action does NOT precede some other event it usually means that the patent action needed to be done at that time because of a deadline for it. Patent actions are timed for many reasons (their deadlines obviously being the dominant factor). Concluding that something has been "held up" because of awaiting patent action is NEVER warranted without good evidence that that, and not any of the usual reasons, was the cause. (And generally indicates ignorance of the factors influencing patent actions.)
