Plant patents
 

Recently I've seen a couple of phals with "vegetative propagation
prohibited" printed on the name tag. I know that some major corporations
are filing for plant patents. I hear about this more when they have
"Genetically altered Corn" or other major cash crops.

I'd like to have a discussion here about plant patents and orchids.

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?

I'm sure there are some opinions on this topic out there in Orchid Land.

Good Growing,
Gene

Plant patents
 

Gene,

Death to the orchid-patenting greedy *******s... and to the patent lawyers
working for them.

Mick

Plant patents
 

I'm sure there are some opinions on this topic out
there in Orchid Land.

My opinion isn't a legal opinion in any way, shape or
form, but just some musings.

I can understand a plant being patented that took a
lot of outside influence to make it come into being
(Aren't genetically altered plants actually modified
scientifically and there is *no way* that those mods
could have happened naturally??) I'm more leery of
patents on plants that can come about naturally. Let's
say you cross plant A and plant B and come up with
plant C and want to patent that. Does that mean that
*I* can't cross my own plants A and B and make a C?

I guess I look at plant patents (of the regular 'We
crossed A with B and got C' type) on the same lines
as copyrighted music from a CD. Once I buy the CD,
it's legal for me to copy that music to any medium
I like and use it for my own pleasure. I can even
copy the entire CD and give it to a friend. But I
*can't* copy the entire CD and sell it to that friend.

Tracey

Plant patents
 

Gene Schurg wrote:

Recently I've seen a couple of phals with "vegetative propagation
prohibited" printed on the name tag. I know that some major corporations
are filing for plant patents. I hear about this more when they have
"Genetically altered Corn" or other major cash crops.

Great topic!

There are plenty of patented rose varieties. And fruit trees
(almost any new introduction is protected by either patent or a royalty
system). Actually, it seems that almost anything 'new and improved' has
a patent on it these days. Maybe I should patent the concept of
patenting everything... You don't have to be a major corporation, but
it does cost a non-trivial amount of money to get the patent. And even
more to enforce the patent.

I'd like to have a discussion here about plant patents and orchids.

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?


No, but life isn't fair. If you sell a clone of your blue phal, you
should sell it for its market value. If its value includes the
potential of somebody making a zillion copies, you should include that
competition in your price. This is why some Paph clones go for 10,000+
US. You are buying the right to compete with the owner in making
hybrids. Phals are no different. If you don't want competition, don't
sell plants to competitors...

Anyway, I have nothing against plant patents per se, but I don't
think they are very enforceable unless somebody does something
exceedingly stupid. If your plant is patented, and you see them appear
in DoorMart by the trillions, and you didn't license it, it is
relatively easy to sue the bejeezus out of the violator. If somebody is
selling a patented plant out of their nursery, and can't prove that they
bought or licensed the production, then that is also pretty easy to
enforce. Lawyers cost money, though. A better strategy for cloneable
orchids might be to not sell a clone until you can sell a great many
clones. Contract it out if you have to. If you think a competetor can
make money selling your plant, then you should have faith that you can
do it as well. That is what I would do if I had a navy blue phal.

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?

You won't go to jail for selling a single keiki, because it is a
civil matter not a criminal matter. The patent holder might sue you in
civil court for damages, but lawyers cost money, so you would have to be
a big target to make it worthwhile. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that
'fair use' is a relatively established concept. A good analogy might be
videotape or music. It is well established that you are allowed to make
a copy of a purchased item for your personal use. You are not allowed
to make a lot of copies and sell or give them to your friends and
neighbors. At that point you are competing with the copyright holder
for business, and they have every right to nail you to the wall. They
will take your money, but you won't go to jail.

You can breed with a plant that says "Vegetative propagation
prohibited", since that is sexual propagation. No worries there.

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

Plant patents
 

Gene Schurg wrote:

Recently I've seen a couple of phals with "vegetative propagation
prohibited" printed on the name tag. I know that some major corporations
are filing for plant patents. I hear about this more when they have
"Genetically altered Corn" or other major cash crops.

I'd like to have a discussion here about plant patents and orchids.

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?

I'm sure there are some opinions on this topic out there in Orchid Land.

Good Growing,
Gene

Gene;
I think it is fair that if someone made a new hybrid to restrict anyone else
from making clones of it. However, a patent does not prevent anyone else from
attempting to make the same (or a better) cross from the original parents
(assuming they are available to everyone). A patent also does not prevent one to
using that plant further in hybridizing, AFAIK.
Restrictions on vegetative propagation is unenforceable if one does not sell any
of the plants.

Regards,

Plant patents
 

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:31:11 -0400, "Mick Fournier"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Death to the orchid-patenting greedy *******s...

It's good to see the OLD Mick is back. :-)

Plant patents
 

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:31:11 -0400, "Mick Fournier"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Death to the orchid-patenting greedy *******s...

It's good to see the OLD Mick is back. :-)

Plant patents
 

I read the situation thus: I cannot purposely clone Phal. Summer Beach (Ken
Peterson x Mama Cass), which I own and is patented by another. But if a
keike forms naturally I will be free to do with it what I choose, including
placing it on the sale table at a meeting.

Also, provided that Ken Peterson and Mama Cass are not somehow protected, I
see no reason why I could not cross them. After all, I'm sure the recipe
for Pepperidge Farms Sausalito cookies is protected, but nothing says that I
can't take flour, eggs, Macadamia nuts, giant milk chocolate chips, etc, and
make my own, which, by the way, are far better than the Pepperidge Farms
variety. Now I'm hungry. VBS

Diana

Plant patents
 

That's what I like about Mick.....Cut through the crap and gets right to the
point!


"Mick Fournier" wrote in message
...
Gene,

Death to the orchid-patenting greedy *******s... and to the patent lawyers
working for them.

Mick

Plant patents
 

I agree with what you all have said about crossing the parents and "trying"
to create your own but you probably won't get identical results.

There are people out there dedicating their lives to creating that special
orchid with a particular feature and someone may create the first big blue
phal or paph rothchildianum with 20 flowers or whatever someone else dreams
up.

I chose phals for my example because you can clone a bizillion of them using
current asexual techniques.

I just thought this would make some good conversation while we wait for the
orchids to grow.


Gene

Plant patents
 

Diana Kulaga wrote:

I read the situation thus: I cannot purposely clone Phal. Summer Beach (Ken
Peterson x Mama Cass), which I own and is patented by another. But if a
keike forms naturally I will be free to do with it what I choose, including
placing it on the sale table at a meeting.


Not exactly. Summer Beach is fair game. I believe you can only
patent a specific cultivar (clone, in orchid speak). So, you can do
what you want with any in the grex Phal Summer Beach, but you are
restricted with Phal. Summer Beach "Patent SOB". In practical terms you
can do whatever you want with the keikis, since you wouldn't ever have
enough to hit the radar screen of the greedy SOB that holds the patent.
But he _could_ go after you if you sold them, if he had infinite time,
money, and somebody ratted you out. Not likely.

Also, provided that Ken Peterson and Mama Cass are not somehow protected, I
see no reason why I could not cross them.

You could cross them even if they were patented. You just can't
asexually reproduce them. Everyday commonplace sexual reproduction is
still allowed (thank goodness).

After all, I'm sure the recipe
for Pepperidge Farms Sausalito cookies is protected, but nothing says that I
can't take flour, eggs, Macadamia nuts, giant milk chocolate chips, etc, and
make my own, which, by the way, are far better than the Pepperidge Farms
variety. Now I'm hungry. VBS


Oh, now you've done it. I need a cookie.

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

Plant patents
 

Gene,

It's a great topic. Wish I'd thought of it!

Diana

"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
thlink.net...
I agree with what you all have said about crossing the parents and
"trying"
to create your own but you probably won't get identical results.

There are people out there dedicating their lives to creating that special
orchid with a particular feature and someone may create the first big blue
phal or paph rothchildianum with 20 flowers or whatever someone else
dreams
up.

I chose phals for my example because you can clone a bizillion of them
using
current asexual techniques.

I just thought this would make some good conversation while we wait for
the
orchids to grow.


Gene

Plant patents
 

I am not a fan of plant patenting, but it is a necessary thing these days.

Mericloning has been around a long time, but it is only in the past 10-15 years
that a problem has arisen. The problem is largely related to Far East
commercial growers buying divisions of top plants, cloning them in quick time,
and then flooding the market before the owner of the original plant has a
chance to make a profit- or perhaps the owner did NOT want the plant cloned at
all.

Sometimes it is worse. More than once a new shoot off a plant has mysteriously
"disappeared" from a show plant that wins an award...

This is not a condemnation of the Far East- it happens here too. But orchids
are big business now and old unspoken rules of good spirit and fairness no
longer apply. The fact that most mass orchid production takes place in the Far
East is why the main issue can be traced there.

Some nurseries have disregarded US patents knowing the international reach to
prosecute is not practical, but such places are few and far between.

Noone is going to bother prosecuting those who sell divisions or keikeis.
Anyone who did would quickly be out of business as the orchid world turned a
cold shoulder- but perhaps not as the mass market becomes where the money is.
Still, that is not the intent of patenting.

The intent is to protect the value of mass cloning and that is fair. Breeders
may wait years between FCCs or breakthrough plants. 2,000 clones x $30 each is
big bucks. The growers have a right to protect their ability to cash in on that
as the originator of the plant.

I do not like patents because they are a reminder that too many people build
collections on the successful plants of others and they are also a reminder
that "doing the right thing" has been replaced by "doing the legal thing", but
so be it.

Tom.

Plant patents
 

Larry,

I am not thaaaaat old.

Mick

Plant patents
 

Patents exist for financial protection. Period.

There is nothing to stop you from propagating a patented plant, just as
there is nothing to stop you from duplicating a patented piece of equipment,
chemical, etc.

There IS, however, the law to stop you from distributing same. Doing so -
through sales, trades, or simple giveaways - has a financial impact on the
patent holder, so is a no-no.

Patent or not, once you own something, you may do with it what you will,
such as cloning the patented plant. Of course, one might wonder what you're
going to do with those thousands of duplicates, as they basically must
remain yours.
--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info!

.. . . . . . . . . . .
"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
Recently I've seen a couple of phals with "vegetative propagation
prohibited" printed on the name tag. I know that some major corporations
are filing for plant patents. I hear about this more when they have
"Genetically altered Corn" or other major cash crops.

I'd like to have a discussion here about plant patents and orchids.

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?

I'm sure there are some opinions on this topic out there in Orchid Land.

Good Growing,
Gene

Plant patents
 

I read the situation thus: I cannot purposely clone Phal. Summer Beach (Ken
Peterson x Mama Cass), which I own and is patented by another. But if a
keike forms naturally I will be free to do with it what I choose, including
placing it on the sale table at a meeting.

Also, provided that Ken Peterson and Mama Cass are not somehow protected, I
see no reason why I could not cross them. After all, I'm sure the recipe
for Pepperidge Farms Sausalito cookies is protected, but nothing says that I
can't take flour, eggs, Macadamia nuts, giant milk chocolate chips, etc, and
make my own, which, by the way, are far better than the Pepperidge Farms
variety. Now I'm hungry. VBS

Diana

Plant patents
 

That's what I like about Mick.....Cut through the crap and gets right to the
point!


"Mick Fournier" wrote in message
...
Gene,

Death to the orchid-patenting greedy *******s... and to the patent lawyers
working for them.

Mick

Plant patents
 

I agree with what you all have said about crossing the parents and "trying"
to create your own but you probably won't get identical results.

There are people out there dedicating their lives to creating that special
orchid with a particular feature and someone may create the first big blue
phal or paph rothchildianum with 20 flowers or whatever someone else dreams
up.

I chose phals for my example because you can clone a bizillion of them using
current asexual techniques.

I just thought this would make some good conversation while we wait for the
orchids to grow.


Gene

Plant patents
 

Diana Kulaga wrote:

I read the situation thus: I cannot purposely clone Phal. Summer Beach (Ken
Peterson x Mama Cass), which I own and is patented by another. But if a
keike forms naturally I will be free to do with it what I choose, including
placing it on the sale table at a meeting.


Not exactly. Summer Beach is fair game. I believe you can only
patent a specific cultivar (clone, in orchid speak). So, you can do
what you want with any in the grex Phal Summer Beach, but you are
restricted with Phal. Summer Beach "Patent SOB". In practical terms you
can do whatever you want with the keikis, since you wouldn't ever have
enough to hit the radar screen of the greedy SOB that holds the patent.
But he _could_ go after you if you sold them, if he had infinite time,
money, and somebody ratted you out. Not likely.

Also, provided that Ken Peterson and Mama Cass are not somehow protected, I
see no reason why I could not cross them.

You could cross them even if they were patented. You just can't
asexually reproduce them. Everyday commonplace sexual reproduction is
still allowed (thank goodness).

After all, I'm sure the recipe
for Pepperidge Farms Sausalito cookies is protected, but nothing says that I
can't take flour, eggs, Macadamia nuts, giant milk chocolate chips, etc, and
make my own, which, by the way, are far better than the Pepperidge Farms
variety. Now I'm hungry. VBS


Oh, now you've done it. I need a cookie.

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

Plant patents
 

Gene,

It's a great topic. Wish I'd thought of it!

Diana

"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
thlink.net...
I agree with what you all have said about crossing the parents and
"trying"
to create your own but you probably won't get identical results.

There are people out there dedicating their lives to creating that special
orchid with a particular feature and someone may create the first big blue
phal or paph rothchildianum with 20 flowers or whatever someone else
dreams
up.

I chose phals for my example because you can clone a bizillion of them
using
current asexual techniques.

I just thought this would make some good conversation while we wait for
the
orchids to grow.


Gene

Plant patents
 

I am not a fan of plant patenting, but it is a necessary thing these days.

Mericloning has been around a long time, but it is only in the past 10-15 years
that a problem has arisen. The problem is largely related to Far East
commercial growers buying divisions of top plants, cloning them in quick time,
and then flooding the market before the owner of the original plant has a
chance to make a profit- or perhaps the owner did NOT want the plant cloned at
all.

Sometimes it is worse. More than once a new shoot off a plant has mysteriously
"disappeared" from a show plant that wins an award...

This is not a condemnation of the Far East- it happens here too. But orchids
are big business now and old unspoken rules of good spirit and fairness no
longer apply. The fact that most mass orchid production takes place in the Far
East is why the main issue can be traced there.

Some nurseries have disregarded US patents knowing the international reach to
prosecute is not practical, but such places are few and far between.

Noone is going to bother prosecuting those who sell divisions or keikeis.
Anyone who did would quickly be out of business as the orchid world turned a
cold shoulder- but perhaps not as the mass market becomes where the money is.
Still, that is not the intent of patenting.

The intent is to protect the value of mass cloning and that is fair. Breeders
may wait years between FCCs or breakthrough plants. 2,000 clones x $30 each is
big bucks. The growers have a right to protect their ability to cash in on that
as the originator of the plant.

I do not like patents because they are a reminder that too many people build
collections on the successful plants of others and they are also a reminder
that "doing the right thing" has been replaced by "doing the legal thing", but
so be it.

Tom.

Plant patents
 

Larry,

I am not thaaaaat old.

Mick

Plant patents
 

Patents exist for financial protection. Period.

There is nothing to stop you from propagating a patented plant, just as
there is nothing to stop you from duplicating a patented piece of equipment,
chemical, etc.

There IS, however, the law to stop you from distributing same. Doing so -
through sales, trades, or simple giveaways - has a financial impact on the
patent holder, so is a no-no.

Patent or not, once you own something, you may do with it what you will,
such as cloning the patented plant. Of course, one might wonder what you're
going to do with those thousands of duplicates, as they basically must
remain yours.
--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info!

.. . . . . . . . . . .
"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
Recently I've seen a couple of phals with "vegetative propagation
prohibited" printed on the name tag. I know that some major corporations
are filing for plant patents. I hear about this more when they have
"Genetically altered Corn" or other major cash crops.

I'd like to have a discussion here about plant patents and orchids.

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?

I'm sure there are some opinions on this topic out there in Orchid Land.

Good Growing,
Gene

Plant patents
 

If you go to Google Groups you can search this newsgroup for past
discussions about legalities of patented plants. Not that I'm putting you
off from starting your own discussion. Just that, as you correctly surmise,
its been talked about before.

K Barrett

"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
Recently I've seen a couple of phals with "vegetative propagation
prohibited" printed on the name tag. I know that some major corporations
are filing for plant patents. I hear about this more when they have
"Genetically altered Corn" or other major cash crops.

I'd like to have a discussion here about plant patents and orchids.

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?

I'm sure there are some opinions on this topic out there in Orchid Land.

Good Growing,
Gene

Plant patents
 

I think anyone that patents nature has real issues.

There is no way these patents should be valid, it stops everyone else using
that plant for future hybrids and once all hybrids are patented where do we
go from there?

I think it's disgusting.

"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
Recently I've seen a couple of phals with "vegetative propagation
prohibited" printed on the name tag. I know that some major corporations
are filing for plant patents. I hear about this more when they have
"Genetically altered Corn" or other major cash crops.

I'd like to have a discussion here about plant patents and orchids.

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?

I'm sure there are some opinions on this topic out there in Orchid Land.

Good Growing,
Gene

Plant patents
 

My one main concern though is that it seems you can't use that clone to
create a new hybrid with another plant.

They don't want you to use it at all, only they have the right and they
figure they have that right because they created it first.


"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Gene Schurg wrote:

Recently I've seen a couple of phals with "vegetative propagation
prohibited" printed on the name tag. I know that some major corporations
are filing for plant patents. I hear about this more when they have
"Genetically altered Corn" or other major cash crops.

Great topic!

There are plenty of patented rose varieties. And fruit trees
(almost any new introduction is protected by either patent or a royalty
system). Actually, it seems that almost anything 'new and improved' has
a patent on it these days. Maybe I should patent the concept of
patenting everything... You don't have to be a major corporation, but
it does cost a non-trivial amount of money to get the patent. And even
more to enforce the patent.

I'd like to have a discussion here about plant patents and orchids.

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?


No, but life isn't fair. If you sell a clone of your blue phal, you
should sell it for its market value. If its value includes the
potential of somebody making a zillion copies, you should include that
competition in your price. This is why some Paph clones go for 10,000+
US. You are buying the right to compete with the owner in making
hybrids. Phals are no different. If you don't want competition, don't
sell plants to competitors...

Anyway, I have nothing against plant patents per se, but I don't
think they are very enforceable unless somebody does something
exceedingly stupid. If your plant is patented, and you see them appear
in DoorMart by the trillions, and you didn't license it, it is
relatively easy to sue the bejeezus out of the violator. If somebody is
selling a patented plant out of their nursery, and can't prove that they
bought or licensed the production, then that is also pretty easy to
enforce. Lawyers cost money, though. A better strategy for cloneable
orchids might be to not sell a clone until you can sell a great many
clones. Contract it out if you have to. If you think a competetor can
make money selling your plant, then you should have faith that you can
do it as well. That is what I would do if I had a navy blue phal.

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?

You won't go to jail for selling a single keiki, because it is a
civil matter not a criminal matter. The patent holder might sue you in
civil court for damages, but lawyers cost money, so you would have to be
a big target to make it worthwhile. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that
'fair use' is a relatively established concept. A good analogy might be
videotape or music. It is well established that you are allowed to make
a copy of a purchased item for your personal use. You are not allowed
to make a lot of copies and sell or give them to your friends and
neighbors. At that point you are competing with the copyright holder
for business, and they have every right to nail you to the wall. They
will take your money, but you won't go to jail.

You can breed with a plant that says "Vegetative propagation
prohibited", since that is sexual propagation. No worries there.

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

Plant patents
 

Bo,

There is no restriction on using the plant for breeding other hybrids. The
only restriction is on making identical copies of the plant through
merecloning.

I can see both sides of the issue and understand why someone who worked hard
would want to protect his/her achievement.

Good Growing,
Gene


"Bolero" wrote in message
...
I think anyone that patents nature has real issues.

There is no way these patents should be valid, it stops everyone else
using
that plant for future hybrids and once all hybrids are patented where do
we
go from there?

I think it's disgusting.

"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
Recently I've seen a couple of phals with "vegetative propagation
prohibited" printed on the name tag. I know that some major
corporations
are filing for plant patents. I hear about this more when they have
"Genetically altered Corn" or other major cash crops.

I'd like to have a discussion here about plant patents and orchids.

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?

I'm sure there are some opinions on this topic out there in Orchid Land.

Good Growing,
Gene

Plant patents
 

But anyone could have done it really.

I was under the impression that you can't even use the plant to create a new
hybrid.

I hope you are right.

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

There is no restriction on using the plant for breeding other hybrids.
The
only restriction is on making identical copies of the plant through
merecloning.

I can see both sides of the issue and understand why someone who worked
hard
would want to protect his/her achievement.

Good Growing,
Gene


"Bolero" wrote in message
...
I think anyone that patents nature has real issues.

There is no way these patents should be valid, it stops everyone else
using
that plant for future hybrids and once all hybrids are patented where do
we
go from there?

I think it's disgusting.

"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
Recently I've seen a couple of phals with "vegetative propagation
prohibited" printed on the name tag. I know that some major
corporations
are filing for plant patents. I hear about this more when they have
"Genetically altered Corn" or other major cash crops.

I'd like to have a discussion here about plant patents and orchids.

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?

I'm sure there are some opinions on this topic out there in Orchid
Land.

Good Growing,
Gene

Plant patents
 

Mick Fournier wrote:

Gene,

Death to the orchid-patenting greedy *******s... and to the patent lawyers
working for them.

Mick





Well said!!

Plant patents
 

First we kill all the orchid patent holders.

Mick

PS, delivered in my finest Shakespearean accent.

Plant patents
 

"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

Plant patents
 

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

Plant patents
 

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.

Plant patents
 

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

Plant patents
 

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.

Plant patents
 

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.

Plant patents
 

"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

Plant patents
 

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

Plant patents
 

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.

Plant patents
 

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.