In article . com,
Steve wrote:

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:48:30 -0800, Wildbilly
wrote:

In article . com,
Steve wrote:

Where is the outrage over Jackson and Perkins' roses?
What's the difference?

You don't sign a contract when you buy or receive a Jackson and Perkins'
rose.

A patent, or more accurately the enforcement of patent, is not
dependent upon contractual agreement.

Roses are (hopefully) perennials and only need to be purchased once,
which is kinda traditional.

Jackson and Perkins' roses won't change the genetic make-up of your
neighbor's roses.

Really? There's absolutely no chance of that? Source, please.
Now you are asking me to prove a negative. It would be better for you to
prove the positive.


Jackson and Perkins' roses won't lead to herbicide resistant weeds.

On the other hand, your neighbors are free to use any genes that have
wandered into their yard, should they want to start their own breeding
program.

Not patented ones...
Do you know which watermelons taste the sweetest?

There is no law to bar people from saving or selling Jackson and
Perkins' rose blossoms or seed.

But there is a law that prevents the propagation of their roses
without consent.

And there are laws about tearing tags off of mattresses, jay walking,
and how much wine a home winemaker can make. Not many people are going
to lose sleep about them, unless it is done flagrantly.


Now, I'm conjecturing here, but if you wanted to fill an acre with
self-made grafts of Jackson and Perkins' roses, I doubt you would have a
problem, unless you went into a commercial venture to sell them.

Whether or not you would "have a problem" is not the test.
The fact of the matter is were one to do as you suggested, they would
be in violation of patent and subject to J&P's relief request(s).

As would the people who copy movies for themselves. These are called
"bread crumb" sins.

But there are no laws against the $600,000,000 from the health insurance
companies that went into politicians pockets in the last two years. Hmmm.

No laws for a "Peace Candidate" who becomes a war monger or calls for
"Change you can believe in", and does the same ol', same ol'.

ACORN gets cut off from federal spending, but weapon suppliers who
rip-off the government get new contracts. Hmmm.
-----
http://civileats.com/2009/04/30/you-...-say-monsanto/

You Say Tomato, I Say Monsanto
April 30th, 2009 By Vanessa Barrington

Scientific American recently published an article called How to Grow a
Better Tomato: The Case against Heirloom Tomatoes. The author details
how plant breeders are going about saving heirloom tomatoes from their
own fatal flaws. The article was written in a combative tone with the
author seemingly intent on provoking a knee-jerk reaction from lovers of
good, real food not managed under laboratory conditions. It worked. The
article garnered 80 comments, most from home gardeners taking issue with
the errors peppering in the article like tomato seeds on a cutting
board. The piece even provoked comments from some of the people in the
article--namely employees of Monsanto. Seeing the name Monsanto connected
with the concept of "improving" yet another food, makes it a little
difficult to be neutral, but I'm going to try to look at this article
with an open mind.

The author says, "heirlooms are actually feeble and inbred--the defective
product of breeding experiments that began during the Enlightenment and
exploded thanks to enthusiastic backyard gardeners from Victorian
England to Depression-era West Virginia. Heirlooms are the tomato
equivalent of the pug--that "purebred" dog with the convoluted nose that
snorts and hacks when it tries to catch a breath."

.. . .

Both the plant breeder and the Monsanto PR person saw fit to comment on
the article for their own reasons due to misstatements in the article,
such as the assertion that hybrid seeds are sterile. They are not. Since
the article ran, the editor has changed some of the offending passages
(marked by asterisks). The comment by Monsanto's PR person stated that
they didn't like the title of the piece because they are doing what they
are doing for the love of heirlooms....because they really want to save
them.
And that's when we get to the real point. The company that brought us
PCBs, Agent Orange, rBGH, tried to patent the pig, and has unleashed a
litany of misery worldwide doesn't want to save heirloom tomatoes for
us. They want to patent and own them. Though the company has met with
resistance to nearly every product it has tried to sell worldwide, it
just keeps plugging along like a nightmarish telemarketer on endless
redial. Monsanto won't stop until they own every seed on the planet.
This article in Grist from last year estimates that with Monsanto's 2008
acquisition of Dutch tomato breeding company, De Ruiter Monsanto may now
control as much as 85% of the US tomato market. Even though the PR
person states in the comment section that Monsanto is doing this for
commercial gardens, not home gardeners, I think it might be prudent for
all home gardeners to lock up your heirloom tomato seeds in a safe place
and watch which way the wind blows.
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist."
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm