In article ,
Sacha writes:
|
| We're talking from two different viewpoints. I am simply saying that if a
| plant breeder has rights over a plant, only he or she has those rights. And
| if someone propagates 144 of N. 'Bluebird' plants and sell them for *their*
| profit, they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom, rightfully,
| they should be sending the 30p or the 10p or the 50p per plant that is
| their royalty. I'm talking about propagating a plant which is under PBR
| specifically, and selling it as that plant, not just something raised in a
| yoghurt tub.

Sorry, Sacha, it is nothing to do with viewpoints. I am talking
about facts.

I am simply saying that if a plant breeder has rights over a
plant, only he or she has those rights.

That is a simplification of the law, but is roughly correct.

If ..., they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom,
rightfully, ...

That is factually wrong. Let us ignore the morality implied by
the "rightfully", as that IS a matter of viewpoint - and I doubt
that you actually know mine on this matter :-)

But they have NOT taken the profit FROM the breeder unless they
have prevented the breeder making a comparable number of sales.
They may have made an illegal profit, but in general the large
majority does not correspond to a loss of profit for the breeder.
Some may, but typically only a small proportion.

If they had not done that, you would NOT have seen a comparable
jump in profit, neither in the short term nor the long.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.