"Gene Schurg" writes:
Is it fair that I spend my time and selective breeding to create a navy blue
phalanopsis and get all kinds of awards on it only to sell a clone of it and
have someone else make a thousand copies?

If I pay my good money for a plant don't I have some rights to make copies
of it? What if it sends out a keiki on its own? Do I have to destroy that
keiki? Would I go to jail if I sell that keiki?

Patents were originally introduced to promote research, and to give
the researcher a chance to get his investment back.

What is happening now, especially in the US, is that major
corporations are taking out patents and using them to force small
businesses out of business. This does not promote research.

I also have an issue with patenting _a_ plant. The patent system was
originally introduced to patent processes. You found a way to make
rubber stable? Wonderful, here is a patent, thank you for doing
something worthwile for the state of science.

What is happening now is that especially the US patent office has
almost no effective way to control how innovative something is before
a patent is granted. People are allowed to patent business processes
(The Amazon 1-click patent, for instance). People are also,
apparently, allowed to patent what results from hybridizing known
plants. I think this is wrong because there is not a fundamentally new
way of doing things involved in these patents. The 1-click patent is
self-evident to someone in the business, hybridizing a plant is also
self-evident - we have been doing it for a couple of decades.

I also have an issue with the protection time of patents. Patents are
like using dynamite to go fishing - either you get a patent, in which
case you are protected for what amounts to a working lifetime, or you
don't. There is no in-between. I don't think this promotes science.

There is also nothing to stop people from submitting frivolous patents
to the patent office. If you hand over something substandard, you
should have to face some kind of music. People are wasting the patent
office's time with all kind of junk now, and that makes the quality of
the approval process deteriorate.

I also think there should be accountability if patents are to be
awarded for genetically modified species. Have you made something that
is wonderful? Great, but if it breaks something else because you are
ignorant of the effects of what you have _really_ done, there will be
hell to pay. I think that would reduce the rush to patent
everything. Combine this with the "can't patent an implementation,
only a process" thought, and we should be a lot safer.

All in all, I think that something is very rotten in the state of
Denmark. The patent system needs to be changed, and this also applies
to patents already granted.

Of course, this won't happen. In 20 years, all patents will be owned
by a small number of corporations, and we will have to pay to be
allowed to breathe. You don't want to know what will happen if your SO
becomes pregnant.

Geir

But anyone could have done it really.

You know what. When Colombus had discovered Amerika in 1492 and then
returned to spain in 1493 everybody knew they could have done what he did,
yet they never did!
It is not the question if you can do something, the questions are, did you
do it or did you think of it?
It is always easy to say that you can do something after someone else has
proven it can be done.

I can understand that people who have invested time and money in something
want time to make back their costs. But I thought nature belonged to
everyone, so have can you claim something as yours when possesion is none
exsistened. By the way nature will probably outlive us all, so isn't
posssesion an illusion?

Peter

Patented plants protected by a patent/royalty system don't have to be
expensive. Most of them aren't. And they aren't expensive partly because
of the patent and royalty system itself.

The system protects the investment of the hybridizer (maker) of the plant
and it protects the investment of the propagator/cloning company.
Specifically it protects these people from each other and from the
commercial grower who buys the stock material in order to produce a whole
crop of the cloned plant. The patent /royalty system is responsible for
most of those Home Depot and garden center orchids that we love so much.

Most orchid hybridizers can't afford to clone their really nice plants in
numbers so high that everyone who wants one can get one. Imagine the cost
and space required to make and grow 100,000 identical red Phals to maturity.
Imagine the marketing costs to sell them.

Those hybridizers large enough to afford the costs of growing and marketing
their own cloned plants patent them in order to protect *this* investment.
Who are they protecting it from? Cloning companies and other large
commercial growers.

Those hybridizers with a nice plant who can't afford to grow and market
100,000 identical plants instead offer it to a company that does the cloning
and marketing in exchange for a fixed price, a certain number of personal
copies and maybe even for a royalty on each plant the cloning company sells
to others. Most royalties to the hybridizer are only a couple of cents per
plant. I can think of two big cloning companies in the United States.
Twyford and Floraculture. It is their sole business to find good plants and
make a million copies of them to sell to commercial growers. If I make a
nice plant then I want to either sell them the right to copy it or protect
it so they can't. Hopefully my rights of ownership and our laws mean
something to them. But if I don't protect it and I sell them a kiekie, it
is theirs to do with what they want. Or is it? I don't know the answer to
this sticky little question. I hope we don't kill all the lawyers. I might
need one.

Anyway, the cloning company will market the clones to commercial growers who
need material that is proven to meet their contractual obligations with
their customers, like Home Depot, catalog companies, garden centers, etc.
They maintain the plant cells and records of propagation as long as the line
of cloned cells survives. We are talking 100s of thousands of copies here.

The commercial growers who supply plants to Garden Centers and catalog
companies buy the cloned stock. The patent and royalty system prevents them
from buying a few plants and making a 100,000 "free ones". (As if the
expenses involved in making 100,000 plants could be called 'free') You must
realize that almost all garden plants are produced this way now, not just
orchids. Everything from Tulips to Poinsettias.

The originator of the plant gets paid. The cloning company gets paid, the
commercial grower gets paid and the end buyer gets a quality plant with
proven characteristics at a home depot price. It's an evil system and we
should put our collective foot down.

It is the cloning companies and the middle man growers who are always on the
lookout for good stock plants to clone. Most of the end growers and big
commercial producers in the industry are visited periodically by observers
who monitor their compliance with the royalty agreements. These are the
people who need to worry about vegetatively propagating stock that is
protected by patents and royalty systems. "Lets see you bought 100,000
'Big Chief' Geranium cuttings from us, how come you have 200,000 on your
benches? Would you like to buy the right to make a 100,000 extra copies now
or after the lawsuit?"

I don't think there are too many companies that worry about propagation by
end consumers, per se. But then an end consumer is not really going to
clone and market them overtly in numbers too big to ignore, right?

Lets put this parts in capitol letters: If it is protected, I *CAN*
POLLINATE IT but I CAN'T CLONE IT. And lets keep it in perspective, I can't
stop it from making a keiki which belongs to me if it does so I can sell it
if I want. Can't I? Drat, are all the lawyers dead already? I have
another question.

Al
PS. I like lawyers. I'm just playing.

I agree with your second part but I hardly think we can compare hybridising
with discovering america.

In actual fact when he discovered america it was by accident, they had no
idea that land would be there and they still thought there were risks. No
one realised what would be discovered. We already know how to create
hybrids.

But you are right, possession is an illusion. Money is the driving factor.

"Boystrup Pb, ann,..." wrote in message
e...

But anyone could have done it really.

You know what. When Colombus had discovered Amerika in 1492 and then
returned to spain in 1493 everybody knew they could have done what he did,
yet they never did!
It is not the question if you can do something, the questions are, did you
do it or did you think of it?
It is always easy to say that you can do something after someone else has
proven it can be done.

I can understand that people who have invested time and money in something
want time to make back their costs. But I thought nature belonged to
everyone, so have can you claim something as yours when possesion is none
exsistened. By the way nature will probably outlive us all, so isn't
posssesion an illusion?

Peter

I believe in theory that you can't recreate the hybrid either, there seems
to be a lot of confusion about it but my understanding is:

You can't create a new one, you can't propagate it in any way and you
technically can't sell it. As a hobbyist you probably wouldn't get into
trouble for selling off a couple of divisions but if they wanted to sue you
they could. Also I believe you can't create new hybrids from that plant
either.

People are disputing this but I read a plant label that clearly said you
couldn't do anything with the plant except grow it. It's kind of like
buying Microsoft Windows and not being able to do anything other than use
it..........and you never technically own it, you just pay for a license.


"Al" wrote in message
...
Patented plants protected by a patent/royalty system don't have to be
expensive. Most of them aren't. And they aren't expensive partly because
of the patent and royalty system itself.

The system protects the investment of the hybridizer (maker) of the plant
and it protects the investment of the propagator/cloning company.
Specifically it protects these people from each other and from the
commercial grower who buys the stock material in order to produce a whole
crop of the cloned plant. The patent /royalty system is responsible for
most of those Home Depot and garden center orchids that we love so much.

Most orchid hybridizers can't afford to clone their really nice plants in
numbers so high that everyone who wants one can get one. Imagine the cost
and space required to make and grow 100,000 identical red Phals to
maturity.
Imagine the marketing costs to sell them.

Those hybridizers large enough to afford the costs of growing and
marketing
their own cloned plants patent them in order to protect *this* investment.
Who are they protecting it from? Cloning companies and other large
commercial growers.

Those hybridizers with a nice plant who can't afford to grow and market
100,000 identical plants instead offer it to a company that does the
cloning
and marketing in exchange for a fixed price, a certain number of personal
copies and maybe even for a royalty on each plant the cloning company
sells
to others. Most royalties to the hybridizer are only a couple of cents
per
plant. I can think of two big cloning companies in the United States.
Twyford and Floraculture. It is their sole business to find good plants
and
make a million copies of them to sell to commercial growers. If I make a
nice plant then I want to either sell them the right to copy it or protect
it so they can't. Hopefully my rights of ownership and our laws mean
something to them. But if I don't protect it and I sell them a kiekie, it
is theirs to do with what they want. Or is it? I don't know the answer
to
this sticky little question. I hope we don't kill all the lawyers. I
might
need one.

Anyway, the cloning company will market the clones to commercial growers
who
need material that is proven to meet their contractual obligations with
their customers, like Home Depot, catalog companies, garden centers, etc.
They maintain the plant cells and records of propagation as long as the
line
of cloned cells survives. We are talking 100s of thousands of copies
here.

The commercial growers who supply plants to Garden Centers and catalog
companies buy the cloned stock. The patent and royalty system prevents
them
from buying a few plants and making a 100,000 "free ones". (As if the
expenses involved in making 100,000 plants could be called 'free') You
must
realize that almost all garden plants are produced this way now, not just
orchids. Everything from Tulips to Poinsettias.

The originator of the plant gets paid. The cloning company gets paid, the
commercial grower gets paid and the end buyer gets a quality plant with
proven characteristics at a home depot price. It's an evil system and we
should put our collective foot down.

It is the cloning companies and the middle man growers who are always on
the
lookout for good stock plants to clone. Most of the end growers and big
commercial producers in the industry are visited periodically by observers
who monitor their compliance with the royalty agreements. These are the
people who need to worry about vegetatively propagating stock that is
protected by patents and royalty systems. "Lets see you bought 100,000
'Big Chief' Geranium cuttings from us, how come you have 200,000 on your
benches? Would you like to buy the right to make a 100,000 extra copies
now
or after the lawsuit?"

I don't think there are too many companies that worry about propagation by
end consumers, per se. But then an end consumer is not really going to
clone and market them overtly in numbers too big to ignore, right?

Lets put this parts in capitol letters: If it is protected, I *CAN*
POLLINATE IT but I CAN'T CLONE IT. And lets keep it in perspective, I
can't
stop it from making a keiki which belongs to me if it does so I can sell
it
if I want. Can't I? Drat, are all the lawyers dead already? I have
another question.

Al
PS. I like lawyers. I'm just playing.

Propagation is a word used to mean either sexual reproduction or cloning,
but these two methods of propagation are not the same in the eyes of those
who wish to protect their patented plants. I sure would like to see this
plant label. And I would like to add my voice to those who are disputing
what you believe and what you read on this label. I will accept it if
nothing I say or believe to be correct changes your mind.

A reason for patenting an orchid plant is because it is unique and better in
some way from all the others of the same cross. The siblings of a patented
plant are not protected by the patent because they are genetically different
from the patented plant.

I don't think there are any patented grexes yet. Only individual plants
from a grex are patented at this point. Remaking the grex is not prohibited
because all of the offspring, even if the same parents are used, will be
genetically unique. (Of course, there is the chance that one will inherit
exactly the same combination of genes as the patented plant and that's would
produce another question for those long dead lawyers....)

Using the pollen or ovaries of a patented plant in a new cross produces
offspring which are genetically different and unique and are not copies of
the patented parent.

Software can not be reproduce by sexual reproduction. :-) Or Bill Gates
would explode and it would be funny.

When you buy a patented plant you are not buying the right to clone it and
sell copies of it but you can propagate it sexually if that turns you on and
no lawyer, dead or alive can stop you....as far as I know.

"Bolero" wrote in message
u...
I believe in theory that you can't recreate the hybrid either, there seems
to be a lot of confusion about it but my understanding is:

You can't create a new one, you can't propagate it in any way and you
technically can't sell it. As a hobbyist you probably wouldn't get into
trouble for selling off a couple of divisions but if they wanted to sue
you
they could. Also I believe you can't create new hybrids from that plant
either.

People are disputing this but I read a plant label that clearly said you
couldn't do anything with the plant except grow it. It's kind of like
buying Microsoft Windows and not being able to do anything other than use
it..........and you never technically own it, you just pay for a license.


"Al" wrote in message
...
Patented plants protected by a patent/royalty system don't have to be
expensive. Most of them aren't. And they aren't expensive partly
because
of the patent and royalty system itself.

The system protects the investment of the hybridizer (maker) of the
plant
and it protects the investment of the propagator/cloning company.
Specifically it protects these people from each other and from the
commercial grower who buys the stock material in order to produce a
whole
crop of the cloned plant. The patent /royalty system is responsible for
most of those Home Depot and garden center orchids that we love so much.

Most orchid hybridizers can't afford to clone their really nice plants
in
numbers so high that everyone who wants one can get one. Imagine the
cost
and space required to make and grow 100,000 identical red Phals to
maturity.
Imagine the marketing costs to sell them.

Those hybridizers large enough to afford the costs of growing and
marketing
their own cloned plants patent them in order to protect *this*
investment.
Who are they protecting it from? Cloning companies and other large
commercial growers.

Those hybridizers with a nice plant who can't afford to grow and market
100,000 identical plants instead offer it to a company that does the
cloning
and marketing in exchange for a fixed price, a certain number of
personal
copies and maybe even for a royalty on each plant the cloning company
sells
to others. Most royalties to the hybridizer are only a couple of cents
per
plant. I can think of two big cloning companies in the United States.
Twyford and Floraculture. It is their sole business to find good plants
and
make a million copies of them to sell to commercial growers. If I make
a
nice plant then I want to either sell them the right to copy it or
protect
it so they can't. Hopefully my rights of ownership and our laws mean
something to them. But if I don't protect it and I sell them a kiekie,
it
is theirs to do with what they want. Or is it? I don't know the answer
to
this sticky little question. I hope we don't kill all the lawyers. I
might
need one.

Anyway, the cloning company will market the clones to commercial growers
who
need material that is proven to meet their contractual obligations with
their customers, like Home Depot, catalog companies, garden centers,
etc.
They maintain the plant cells and records of propagation as long as the
line
of cloned cells survives. We are talking 100s of thousands of copies
here.

The commercial growers who supply plants to Garden Centers and catalog
companies buy the cloned stock. The patent and royalty system prevents
them
from buying a few plants and making a 100,000 "free ones". (As if the
expenses involved in making 100,000 plants could be called 'free') You
must
realize that almost all garden plants are produced this way now, not
just
orchids. Everything from Tulips to Poinsettias.

The originator of the plant gets paid. The cloning company gets paid,
the
commercial grower gets paid and the end buyer gets a quality plant with
proven characteristics at a home depot price. It's an evil system and
we
should put our collective foot down.

It is the cloning companies and the middle man growers who are always on
the
lookout for good stock plants to clone. Most of the end growers and big
commercial producers in the industry are visited periodically by
observers
who monitor their compliance with the royalty agreements. These are the
people who need to worry about vegetatively propagating stock that is
protected by patents and royalty systems. "Lets see you bought 100,000
'Big Chief' Geranium cuttings from us, how come you have 200,000 on your
benches? Would you like to buy the right to make a 100,000 extra copies
now
or after the lawsuit?"

I don't think there are too many companies that worry about propagation
by
end consumers, per se. But then an end consumer is not really going to
clone and market them overtly in numbers too big to ignore, right?

Lets put this parts in capitol letters: If it is protected, I *CAN*
POLLINATE IT but I CAN'T CLONE IT. And lets keep it in perspective, I
can't
stop it from making a keiki which belongs to me if it does so I can sell
it
if I want. Can't I? Drat, are all the lawyers dead already? I have
another question.

Al
PS. I like lawyers. I'm just playing.

"Bolero" writes:
In actual fact when he discovered america it was by accident, they had no
idea that land would be there and they still thought there were risks. No
one realised what would be discovered. We already know how to create
hybrids.

We know how to create hybrids, but we don't know how to make the ones
we want. If we did, we would have done so a long time ago.

Everyone knew how to sail, but they didn't know about the american
continent. If they did, they would have gone there before 1492.

Geir

OK guys this leads right into the nonRHS Phal names -- these are the
patented and registered plants. It is not just the US produced plants, many
of the Dutch clones have started coming with circle R protection (Al, I
forgot the number codes). For all the patented or registered Phals I have
seen coming out of the big cloning companies, the patent is on a single
plants from a cross and the patent only restricts asexual propagation of
that plant. I know this is not the case for genetically engineered corn.
One of the first patented Phals that I remember was Phal Golden Emperor
'Sweet' FCC/AOS. If I remember right it was protected from all forms of
propagation. If anyone cared I guess they could ask a lawyer.

Phal Summer Beach is not right. It should be Phal 'Summer Beach' circle P.
Phal 'Summer Beach' is a single plant from the cross of Phal Ken Peterson X
Phal Mama Cass. I think Twyford has patents on a couple of plants from this
cross ('Lava Glow' might be one of them.) The last time I checked this
cross had still not been named, but I need to update my version of Wildcatt.

I am guessing with time we will see the number of Phal patents decrease and
go away. First, I bloomed out a couple of bottles of Phal Ken Peterson X
Phal Mama Cass and have a couple of plants very similar to 'Summer Beach'
that could be cloned and sold in direct competition. I am just one grower,
I am sure Mark sold bottles to a lot of other growers. From what I have
seen, the patented plants are just not that special. I know of three
different Baldan's Kaleidoscope being cloned, all are pretty similar, one is
patented. Second, and I think the real killer of Phal plant patents is the
time required to grow Phals. Lets say I make a cross this year. In 2007 I
may start to see the first of the cross bloom. I pick the very best and
send it off to the lab while at the same time start the paper work with the
PTO. In 2010 the first of the clones are blooming and ready for sale at the
door store with all the patent protections. The protection prevents another
from buying the plant at the door store and sending it off to the lab. In
which case he would have 'near blooming' size seedlings (just out of flask)
available for sale in 2011 and plants ready to sell at the door store in
2013. (4 years from cross to bloom and 3 years from start of lab to bloom
is very optimistic.) In my book this just does not make good business
because at that point the plant would be from a cross a decade old and would
have been available in mass number for a couple years already.

Pat

No wonder I could not get mine to set seed. It is prohibited. :-) I can't
believe that propagation by seed is part of Phal Golden Emperor 'Sweet'
FCC/AOS patent protection.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...Pha laenopsis

That really long link (two lines worth) takes you to the search page at the
Patent and Trademark office and shows you all Patent documents that contain
the words Orchid and Phalaenopsis, all the way back to 1976. There are a
dozen or more patented Phals and it is kind of interesting to read one of
these documents even though they don't tell you weather it is just cloning
that is being protected or all forms of propagation. Pine Ridge sure has
been busy.

Even though Phal Golden Emperor 'Sweet' FCC/AOS is listed as patented
everywhere else on the internet that it's name is mentioned strangely I have
been unable to find the patent documentation for it at the PTO itself. The
closest in color, time frame and originator is for a plant listed as "Orchid
Plant: Golden King"

Taida's webpage claims:
Phal. Golden Emperor "Sweet" FCC/AOS FCC/OSROC
"Very beautiful flower, Large flower, Take the FCC class from AOS, and our
company get pattent from American."
http://www.servernet.com.tw/taida/presents3.htm

I will keep searching but I feel I am very close to learning from documents
at the patent office itself, just what types of propagation are
protected....

No, I do not have a life...



"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
One of the first patented Phals that I remember was Phal Golden Emperor
'Sweet' FCC/AOS. If I remember right it was protected from all forms of
propagation. If anyone cared I guess they could ask a lawyer.

Ok I believe you and perhaps I have been misled. I don't have the plant
label, it was at a nursery and it put me off buying the plant.

Perhaps it held a warning that couldn't be enforced anyway.

I do know that it was from a dutch company.

Thanks for the information, I feel better about it now.

"Al" wrote in message
...
Propagation is a word used to mean either sexual reproduction or cloning,
but these two methods of propagation are not the same in the eyes of those
who wish to protect their patented plants. I sure would like to see this
plant label. And I would like to add my voice to those who are disputing
what you believe and what you read on this label. I will accept it if
nothing I say or believe to be correct changes your mind.

A reason for patenting an orchid plant is because it is unique and better
in
some way from all the others of the same cross. The siblings of a
patented
plant are not protected by the patent because they are genetically
different
from the patented plant.

I don't think there are any patented grexes yet. Only individual plants
from a grex are patented at this point. Remaking the grex is not
prohibited
because all of the offspring, even if the same parents are used, will be
genetically unique. (Of course, there is the chance that one will inherit
exactly the same combination of genes as the patented plant and that's
would
produce another question for those long dead lawyers....)

Using the pollen or ovaries of a patented plant in a new cross produces
offspring which are genetically different and unique and are not copies
of
the patented parent.

Software can not be reproduce by sexual reproduction. :-) Or Bill Gates
would explode and it would be funny.

When you buy a patented plant you are not buying the right to clone it
and
sell copies of it but you can propagate it sexually if that turns you on
and
no lawyer, dead or alive can stop you....as far as I know.

"Bolero" wrote in message
u...
I believe in theory that you can't recreate the hybrid either, there
seems
to be a lot of confusion about it but my understanding is:

You can't create a new one, you can't propagate it in any way and you
technically can't sell it. As a hobbyist you probably wouldn't get into
trouble for selling off a couple of divisions but if they wanted to sue
you
they could. Also I believe you can't create new hybrids from that plant
either.

People are disputing this but I read a plant label that clearly said you
couldn't do anything with the plant except grow it. It's kind of like
buying Microsoft Windows and not being able to do anything other than
use
it..........and you never technically own it, you just pay for a
license.


"Al" wrote in message
...
Patented plants protected by a patent/royalty system don't have to be
expensive. Most of them aren't. And they aren't expensive partly
because
of the patent and royalty system itself.

The system protects the investment of the hybridizer (maker) of the
plant
and it protects the investment of the propagator/cloning company.
Specifically it protects these people from each other and from the
commercial grower who buys the stock material in order to produce a
whole
crop of the cloned plant. The patent /royalty system is responsible
for
most of those Home Depot and garden center orchids that we love so
much.

Most orchid hybridizers can't afford to clone their really nice plants
in
numbers so high that everyone who wants one can get one. Imagine the
cost
and space required to make and grow 100,000 identical red Phals to
maturity.
Imagine the marketing costs to sell them.

Those hybridizers large enough to afford the costs of growing and
marketing
their own cloned plants patent them in order to protect *this*
investment.
Who are they protecting it from? Cloning companies and other large
commercial growers.

Those hybridizers with a nice plant who can't afford to grow and
market
100,000 identical plants instead offer it to a company that does the
cloning
and marketing in exchange for a fixed price, a certain number of
personal
copies and maybe even for a royalty on each plant the cloning company
sells
to others. Most royalties to the hybridizer are only a couple of
cents
per
plant. I can think of two big cloning companies in the United States.
Twyford and Floraculture. It is their sole business to find good
plants
and
make a million copies of them to sell to commercial growers. If I
make
a
nice plant then I want to either sell them the right to copy it or
protect
it so they can't. Hopefully my rights of ownership and our laws mean
something to them. But if I don't protect it and I sell them a
kiekie,
it
is theirs to do with what they want. Or is it? I don't know the
answer
to
this sticky little question. I hope we don't kill all the lawyers. I
might
need one.

Anyway, the cloning company will market the clones to commercial
growers
who
need material that is proven to meet their contractual obligations
with
their customers, like Home Depot, catalog companies, garden centers,
etc.
They maintain the plant cells and records of propagation as long as
the
line
of cloned cells survives. We are talking 100s of thousands of copies
here.

The commercial growers who supply plants to Garden Centers and catalog
companies buy the cloned stock. The patent and royalty system
prevents
them
from buying a few plants and making a 100,000 "free ones". (As if the
expenses involved in making 100,000 plants could be called 'free')
You
must
realize that almost all garden plants are produced this way now, not
just
orchids. Everything from Tulips to Poinsettias.

The originator of the plant gets paid. The cloning company gets paid,
the
commercial grower gets paid and the end buyer gets a quality plant
with
proven characteristics at a home depot price. It's an evil system and
we
should put our collective foot down.

It is the cloning companies and the middle man growers who are always
on
the
lookout for good stock plants to clone. Most of the end growers and
big
commercial producers in the industry are visited periodically by
observers
who monitor their compliance with the royalty agreements. These are
the
people who need to worry about vegetatively propagating stock that is
protected by patents and royalty systems. "Lets see you bought
100,000
'Big Chief' Geranium cuttings from us, how come you have 200,000 on
your
benches? Would you like to buy the right to make a 100,000 extra
copies
now
or after the lawsuit?"

I don't think there are too many companies that worry about
propagation
by
end consumers, per se. But then an end consumer is not really going
to
clone and market them overtly in numbers too big to ignore, right?

Lets put this parts in capitol letters: If it is protected, I *CAN*
POLLINATE IT but I CAN'T CLONE IT. And lets keep it in perspective, I
can't
stop it from making a keiki which belongs to me if it does so I can
sell
it
if I want. Can't I? Drat, are all the lawyers dead already? I have
another question.

Al
PS. I like lawyers. I'm just playing.

"Al" wrote in message
...

Even though Phal Golden Emperor 'Sweet' FCC/AOS is listed as patented
everywhere else on the internet that it's name is mentioned strangely I
have
been unable to find the patent documentation for it at the PTO itself.
The
closest in color, time frame and originator is for a plant listed as
"Orchid
Plant: Golden King"


My memory sucks. But if I remember right, AOSB did an article on Golden
Emperor 'Sweet' where it talked about it getting the FCC and it's patent. I
do not remember if it was a stand alone article or part of one on the FCC's
of 1983. I don't save old Bulletins, err Orchids, but maybe someone does.



I will keep searching but I feel I am very close to learning from
documents
at the patent office itself, just what types of propagation are
protected....



you go boy

Pat

This is such a hoot. Even the Patent and Trademark Office can't correctly
write a plant name.
The patented plant called "Golden King" has parents listed as:
Phal. (Matti Shave x Orbit) x Bambo

This is the name of Phal Golden Emperor before it capsule parent grex was
registered with the RHS. But the pollen parent of Golden Emperor is not
Bambo. It is Mambo. There is no registered cross called Bambo. :-) And,
apparently, 'Golden King' is the clonal name on the patent document, not
'Sweet',

I noticed a similar mistake on one of the Pine Ridge documents. Mama Cass
was written Mama Case.

I am surprised the orchid naming system has held up as long as it has.

Anyway, the guards at the PTO found me loitering around the electronic
filing cabinets and ushered me out telling me (in not such polite terms) to
"get a life." I guess I will just have to live without my proof...

Sorry, Gene, I didn't mean to usurp your thread... It's just something I do
before I can stop myself...


"Al" wrote in message news:...
No wonder I could not get mine to set seed. It is prohibited. :-) I
can't
believe that propagation by seed is part of Phal Golden Emperor 'Sweet'
FCC/AOS patent protection.


http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...Pha laenopsis

That really long link (two lines worth) takes you to the search page at
the
Patent and Trademark office and shows you all Patent documents that
contain
the words Orchid and Phalaenopsis, all the way back to 1976. There are a
dozen or more patented Phals and it is kind of interesting to read one of
these documents even though they don't tell you weather it is just cloning
that is being protected or all forms of propagation. Pine Ridge sure has
been busy.

Even though Phal Golden Emperor 'Sweet' FCC/AOS is listed as patented
everywhere else on the internet that it's name is mentioned strangely I
have
been unable to find the patent documentation for it at the PTO itself.
The
closest in color, time frame and originator is for a plant listed as
"Orchid
Plant: Golden King"

Taida's webpage claims:
Phal. Golden Emperor "Sweet" FCC/AOS FCC/OSROC
"Very beautiful flower, Large flower, Take the FCC class from AOS, and our
company get pattent from American."
http://www.servernet.com.tw/taida/presents3.htm

I will keep searching but I feel I am very close to learning from
documents
at the patent office itself, just what types of propagation are
protected....

No, I do not have a life...



"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
One of the first patented Phals that I remember was Phal Golden
Emperor
'Sweet' FCC/AOS. If I remember right it was protected from all forms of
propagation. If anyone cared I guess they could ask a lawyer.

Pat,

Funny you should mention Twyford's Lava Glow.....I started this discussion
because at the Home Depot in Reston there is a cart of out of bloom Phal
Lava Glow for 1/2 price. They have a Twyford's tag with the "don't you even
think about trying to make a copy of this plant" warning.

So they have patented a plant that Home Depot can't sell for 1/2 price
grin. Ok they are out of bloom but look amazingly well. I had to
look....it's like a car accident on the highway and you have to slow down
and check it out.

Now what I find really interesting is that they haven't even registered Lava
Glow on the RHS database? Furthermore, they don't have any particular clone
of Lava Glow indicated on the tag!

Good Growing,
Gene

Some people will do anything to put off repotting the phals!

Here is what Terry Glancy of Pine Ridge Orchids wrote about "Lave Glow" in
the International Phalaenopsis Alaince email digest in March. Terry is the
originator of the plant that Twyford Labs clones and markets as Lava Glow to
producers who sell them to Home Depot:

Terry wrote:
"Harmony Rose" is my plant of (Ken Peterson X Mama Cass) 'Pine Ridge 6'
(patent pending) and "Lava Glow" is Baldan
Orchids' (Buddha's Treasure X pulcherrima) 'Lava Glow'. I have been trying
to "persuade" them to at least put the
"commercial name" in double quotes so that buyers might realize the
"commercial name" has nothing to do with the
RHS/AOS registered grex names.

"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
Pat,

Funny you should mention Twyford's Lava Glow.....I started this discussion
because at the Home Depot in Reston there is a cart of out of bloom Phal
Lava Glow for 1/2 price. They have a Twyford's tag with the "don't you
even
think about trying to make a copy of this plant" warning.

So they have patented a plant that Home Depot can't sell for 1/2 price
grin. Ok they are out of bloom but look amazingly well. I had to
look....it's like a car accident on the highway and you have to slow down
and check it out.

Now what I find really interesting is that they haven't even registered
Lava
Glow on the RHS database? Furthermore, they don't have any particular
clone
of Lava Glow indicated on the tag!

Good Growing,
Gene