Wait a minute: nobody is 'stealing' anything here, don't you agree? If you call this 'stealing', then any citation in any paper is 'stealing'. Any time someone quotes a formula from another author, one is 'stealing'. We are fully referencing the source of the data. We even stress clearly that data are preliminary and they are not the more precise ones that PAMELA will publish on paper soon. So I think the title of your post is a bit too strong. Having clarified this, one can ask oneself whether there is anything wrong in what we did. I understand that someone may disagree or feel uncomfortable, so I am open to criticism. However, I'd like to make a few points: - Were the data presented in public? Yes, and it was not even the first time. So, while I do understand that one can feel a difference between the locutions: (a) presented in public, (b) published, (c) printed on paper, (d) released on a pdf slide... etc etc, I personally find it difficult to cut any line of 'legitimacy' here. - Before doing anything with those points we asked the spokeperson of the collaboration at the Conference, who agreed and said that there was no problem. More precisely, let me stress: he did not give anything directly to us!; he just said that if we wanted to use our photo we were free to do it. That's pretty obvious and reasonable, and this is why we specify in our paper that those data point are not the official ones. - The paper we posted on the arXiv is just the proceeding for the conference. The predictions of the model were already published in a previous ordinary paper (published on Nuclear Physics B last Spring) and what we did is simply to make the check by superimposing to the old figure the preliminary points. Proceedings are there to tell what happens during conferences, this is what they are for. I say all the above with no intent at all of provocation, it's just to clarify the issue a bit. I am happy to know comments and change or shape my own opinion on this, if I am wrong. But after all, I don't think it is what we should focus on. The science results are quite interesting.