DaveDay34 wrote:

To divert from the topic a bit,,, why? Propagating plants to launch a
new plant onto the market is an expensive business. Or do you have issue
with people licensing 'borrowed' material as with companies like
Monsanto?

Just interested...
//
J

People for many many years have protected their inventions and ideas. These
have included books, music, machines, etc. It seems to be a recent idea that
it should be possible to take plants that are by and large available to
everyone and come up with a hybrid, then prevent anyone else from producing
that hydrid without a license.

I understand that it's a very complex topic and I can't possibly start to
answer all the many facets of the arguements raised by breeders rights,
licensing, etc. However, I do find it strange that companies (in general) can
'patent' plants. In the long run I think it will be more detrimental than
beneficial to society and the planet as a whole. I'm definitely not sure that
GM crops are a good idea, for all sorts of reasons.

Not sure as this answers the question, or if I've understood the question
totally, but maybe I have and I do (?).

Yes, kind of, more or less...

I have issues with very big companies like Monsanto taking wild or local
species of say rice and then engineering it, licensing it and effectivly
merchandising it to the people of the areas where they got the wild
samples from to the extent that the native diversity is lost.

However I have nothing against a breeder registering a new cultivar, if
they've invested thousands or millions developing it.

I do however differentiate between GE modified and more tradiotionally
bred plants.. As you say, a very complex topic.


As a gardener though, I tend to go for non hybrids and species rather
than 'the latest thing'! They tend to be tougher, ususally more
interesting, and cheaper in many cases!-)
//
Jim