On 12/8/04 8:24 am, in article , "Tim Tyler"
wrote:

Franz Heymann wrote or quoted:
"Rodger Whitlock" wrote in message

(I've seen serious claims that the genetic variability among the
twigs of one apple tree is comparable to that among a similar
number of seedlings of the same apple.)

If that were true, it would make a total mockery of the naming and
"patenting" of varieties. How would one then legally establish
whether two varieties which looked very similar were in fact
propagated from the same plant or not?

Patenting plant varieties is ridiculous enough as it is -
I'm not sure it could be made even more so ;-)

There's nothing ridiculous about it. Without plant breeders you wouldn't
*get* new varieties of anything. And why should they spend time and money
developing new strains for you to benefit while they don't?
As to proving the 'newness' of a plant, all such plants have to be trialled
both for 'uniqueness' and provenance before Plant Breeder's Rights are
applied for. The would-be breeder pays for all this before he makes a
farthing out of a new plant and not all plants are considered sufficiently
marketable to make it worthwhile, so in essence, he is taking a gamble from
which others might benefit in the long term. It is precisely the same as
anyone taking out a patent on that much-vaunted better mousetrap.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)