But, to answer your question: jojoba and neem.


Hi Nick:
Jojoba and neem could not be legally patented here. I believe that you are
referring to the attempt by certain European business entities to patent the
active ingredients found within. These patents were declared null after an
intervention by the government of India some time ago.

Best regards,
Mark

Those who produce new plants can
register them as a form of copyright.

Copyrights, trademarks and patents are different. One can put a trademark or
service mark(a name, symbol, or similar device) on a plant that is not
patented. Copyrights do not extend to underlying ideas but only to the specific
manner in which an idea is expressed for original works of authorship.

"Sacha" wrote (in reply to Stephen Howard who said) Mind you... what
happens if you breed from such a plant ( as opposed
to merely grow cuttings ) - who would own the rights to the new
variety??

Regards,


Good question. I'll ask the boss!
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

Sacha,

I'm no lawyer, but I would argue that, if you breed from such a plant,
you're producing a NEW cultivar and you're not propagating (i.e. cloning,
true to type) the one parent that has PBR. The new plant, even if it's
any good (and IME most of them are not), would not be the one being sold
by the producer who has the PBR. It would probably differ markedly from
the parent(s) and you wouldn't, therefore, be affecting his/her livelihood
or future profits.

I'm not aware of PBR being applied in the same way as livestock breeding -
if it were to be, there would be armies of inspectors, having to check on
chance seedlings in everyones' gardens.

- Tom.

Tom Bennett30/4/04 1:00
e
snip
I'm no lawyer, but I would argue that, if you breed from such a plant,
you're producing a NEW cultivar and you're not propagating (i.e. cloning,
true to type) the one parent that has PBR. The new plant, even if it's
any good (and IME most of them are not), would not be the one being sold
by the producer who has the PBR. It would probably differ markedly from
the parent(s) and you wouldn't, therefore, be affecting his/her livelihood
or future profits.

I'm not aware of PBR being applied in the same way as livestock breeding -
if it were to be, there would be armies of inspectors, having to check on
chance seedlings in everyones' gardens.


I asked Ray about this and he said that if someone used e.g. his Nemesia and
crossed it with another plant to produce a new strain they *should*,
strictly speaking, pay him a tiny percentage. He says this would be
difficult to enforce, prove and 'patrol' in his opinion. However, as far as
I know, when someone wants to register a new plant for PBR they have to give
its origins, if known, so parentage would come into that, I suppose.
Sometimes things are just discovered as sports, sometimes they're bred
deliberately.

--

Sacha
(remove the weeds to email me)

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:51:29 +0100, Victoria Clare
wrote:

(Nick Maclaren) wrote in news:c6qbg3$ek6$1
:

You may ignore all such crap, until and unless the monopolists
get the IP laws extended to covering such things. At MOST, you are
forbidden to propagate plants FOR SALE, and that applies only to
plants with Plant Breeder's Rights.

And we hope not.

I believe that patenting a living thing is not, and should not be, the same
as patenting a simple gadget.

Anyone for copyleft plants?

(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses...WhatIsCopyleft)

Patenting and copyrighting everything from seeds to trashcan (dustbin)
icons has obviously gotten out of hand. However, when a living thing
or invention or process has been deliberately developed at
considerable (or any) cost, and is sold or traded with at least part
of its value coming from a unique characteristic, it seems only
reasonable to pay for it.

This policy in no way prevents anyone from giving away the results of
their personal efforts if they want to. But if my *work* is
plant-breeding or butterfly cultivation, and someone tells me my
'product' should be free to everyone because they're "living things,"
I'd tell 'em to go boil their heads!

Frogleg wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:51:29 +0100, Victoria Clare
wrote:

(Nick Maclaren) wrote in news:c6qbg3$ek6$1
:

You may ignore all such crap, until and unless the monopolists
get the IP laws extended to covering such things. At MOST, you are
forbidden to propagate plants FOR SALE, and that applies only to
plants with Plant Breeder's Rights.

And we hope not.

I believe that patenting a living thing is not, and should not be, the same
as patenting a simple gadget.

Anyone for copyleft plants?

(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses...WhatIsCopyleft)

Patenting and copyrighting everything from seeds to trashcan (dustbin)
icons has obviously gotten out of hand. However, when a living thing
or invention or process has been deliberately developed at
considerable (or any) cost, and is sold or traded with at least part
of its value coming from a unique characteristic, it seems only
reasonable to pay for it.

This policy in no way prevents anyone from giving away the results of
their personal efforts if they want to. But if my *work* is
plant-breeding or butterfly cultivation, and someone tells me my
'product' should be free to everyone because they're "living things,"
I'd tell 'em to go boil their heads!

And, on the other hand (or maybe it's on this hand all the time), my
blood boils when Western chemical companies go out and try to patent
or pbr or whatever plants which local people have been using with
wisdom for centuries. This is the kind of thing which underlies the
more fraudulent aspects of the "Green Revolution", and GMO, and the
EU's prohibition on the sale of seed varieties our ancestors developed
and preserved because they knew what they were doing. It isn't a
"level playing-field": _you_ develop a really big-time valuable new
crop variety, or a really big-timegood new computer application, and
see what happens to you when you go to market.

Mike.

"Victoria Clare" wrote in message
. 240.10...
I believe that patenting a living thing is not, and should not be,
the same as patenting a simple gadget.

I once worked in a garden centre (nearly 25 years ago).
Many of our plants were sold at 1p each when sold by the dozen,
e.g.hedging. It was a large GC, with a drive through, sheds, office,
parking and off course ourselves there to serve and inform.
Yet.... somehow... many customers resented paying anything at all for
plants and did so on similar grounds to your objections to patenting
plants.

Um, I think you are putting words into my newsreader. I would see it as
more like providing a translation into the language of practical effect.

I have no objection to people being paid (and paid well) for their work
and enterprise, and I'm very pleased that (for example) Hill House are
able to make a living through it. Well done them.

I'm certainly not suggesting they should stand alone and defy the trend
to register their plants - that would be mad: they'd just be mown down
by others less scrupulous.

I'm just not convinced that applying patents to something as complex as
a living plant (or animal) should be exactly the same as applying a
patent to a new mouse-trap. You need a lot more information to make a
petunia than you do to make a mousetrap. Is this the only possible way
to compensate people for their work? No. You may be aware that it seems in
the case of men, (alledgedly) title/position/status forms of reward are
often accepted as equal to money.... albeit that they don't pay the bills.
However, At present money rules and it's ruling effect has gotton stronger
off late.By way of example, several years ago I had to change address 5
times in 12 months andeach time I ran into the same problem. I would reply
to an advert. The phone call would go something like this;Me; I'm calling
about the room/bedsit/flat, is it still available?Ad person: Yeah, Look,
sorry to be so fast but I have to ask you a few questions Ok!May I ask waht
you do for a living?Me: I'm a gardener (technically more landscape gardening
but leave it out because too many don't understand the "landscape" bit, then
when I explain they say, "oh you mean you're a gardener")Ad person: "What
was that" (shouts to someone else where s/he is)Oh sorry mate it's gone.Then
I see the same add run for 2 more weeks and I give it another go. Another
person answers. Not the one mentioned in the add. The accomodation is still
available, s/he can't figure out why, (duh)but I have to speak to
alan/paul.sophi about it and s/he's not in.But at least it was not as bad as
those times when I've answered the job question and all I got was an
inaudible grunt as the Ad person slammed the phone down.Amazingly not one
estate/letting agency could seem to be able to help me out.A mini property
barron who neighbours a customer of mine was mor.. hmm.. informative. He
couldn't possibly let me any of his properties because his rent increases
could not possibly be matched on a gardeners income and so soon down the
road there would be all the hassles of eviction. (but there was also a
mention of something akin to lowering the tone of his properties with riff
raff.)Hell, I even once got really bored with being very alone so I answered
an add from a dating agency. I asked how much it was. They replied with the
job question and when I answered that one they (she) very politelyrejected
my interest and suggested something more down market might be more
appropriate.Luckily I don't need such agencies, but interestingly because of
a foreigner living elsewhere and therefore not polluted by the rat
race.Compensating people for their work should start long before the money
speaks. But that's sheer fantasy nowadays There have to be other ways of
dealing with unique information and the
creating of new things. I agree with that sentiment.
You have to admit plant registration does restrict the spread of new
varieties. A number of times I've found a plant via the Web that
sounded fantastic and that I would happily spend quite a bit on, but
there is no UK /european supplier, and the nursery that bred the thing
is not set up to make international sales, or not interested in retail.

The copyleft scheme I mentioned is a system for voluntarily making some
information (sort of) free, in the belief that information that is free
leads to new ideas and discoveries as more people use it. Such belief's
though excemplary, usually get swept out and exploited by oppurtunists.

Patrick

Woops, this has come up typoed decidedly odd. I'm very sorry about that. No
clue how it happened, so I merely correct the typos,

"tuin man" wrote in message
...
"Victoria Clare" wrote in message
. 240.10...
I believe that patenting a living thing is not, and should not be,
the same as patenting a simple gadget.

I once worked in a garden centre (nearly 25 years ago).
Many of our plants were sold at 1p each when sold by the dozen,
e.g.hedging. It was a large GC, with a drive through, sheds, office,
parking and off course ourselves there to serve and inform.
Yet.... somehow... many customers resented paying anything at all for
plants and did so on similar grounds to your objections to patenting
plants.

Um, I think you are putting words into my newsreader.

I would see it as more like providing a translation into the language of
practical effect.

I have no objection to people being paid (and paid well) for their work
and enterprise, and I'm very pleased that (for example) Hill House are
able to make a living through it. Well done them.

I'm certainly not suggesting they should stand alone and defy the trend
to register their plants - that would be mad: they'd just be mown down
by others less scrupulous.

I'm just not convinced that applying patents to something as complex as
a living plant (or animal) should be exactly the same as applying a
patent to a new mouse-trap. You need a lot more information to make a
petunia than you do to make a mousetrap. Is this the only possible way
to compensate people for their work?

No. You may be aware that it seems in the case of men, (alledgedly)
title/position/status forms of reward are often accepted as equal to
money.... albeit that they don't pay the bills.
However, At present money rules and it's ruling effect has gotton stronger
off late.By way of example, several years ago I had to change address 5
times in 12 months and each time I ran into the same problem. I would reply
to an advert. The phone call would go something like this;
Me; I'm calling about the room/bedsit/flat, is it still available?Ad person:
Yeah, Look, sorry to be so fast but I have to ask you a few questions Ok!May
I ask what you do for a living?Me: I'm a gardener (technically more
landscape gardening
but leave it out because too many don't understand the "landscape" bit,
then when I explain they say, "oh you mean you're a gardener")
Ad person: "What was that" (shouts to someone else where s/he is) Oh sorry
mate it's gone.
Then I see the same add run for 2 more weeks and I give it another go.
Another person answers. Not the one mentioned in the add. The accomodation
is still available, s/he can't figure out why, (duh) but I have to speak to
alan/paul.sophi about it and s/he's not in.
But at least it was not as bad as those times when I've answered the job
question and all I got was an
incomprehensible grunt as the Ad person slammed the phone down. Amazingly
not one estate/letting agency could seem to be able to help me out.
A mini property barron who neighbours a customer of mine was mor.. hmm..
informative. He couldn't possibly let me any of his properties because his
rent increases could not possibly be matched on a gardeners income and so
soon down the road there would be all the hassles of eviction. (but there
was also a mention of something akin to lowering the tone of his properties
with riff raff.)
Hell, I even once got really bored with being very alone so I answered an
add from a dating agency. I asked how much it was. They replied with the job
question and when I answered that one they (she) very politely rejected my
interest and suggested something more down market might be more appropriate.
Luckily I don't need such agencies, but interestingly because of a foreigner
living elsewhere and therefore not polluted by the rat race.
Compensating people for their work should start long before the money
speaks. But that's sheer fantasy nowadays

There have to be other ways of
dealing with unique information and the
creating of new things. I agree with that sentiment.
You have to admit plant registration does restrict the spread of new
varieties. A number of times I've found a plant via the Web that
sounded fantastic and that I would happily spend quite a bit on, but
there is no UK /european supplier, and the nursery that bred the thing
is not set up to make international sales, or not interested in retail.

The copyleft scheme I mentioned is a system for voluntarily making some
information (sort of) free, in the belief that information that is free
leads to new ideas and discoveries as more people use it.

Such belief's though excemplary, usually get swept out and exploited by
oppurtunists.

Patrick

Put in that context, I can see the validity of the PBR - and withdraw
my comments unreservedly. I hadn't considered the possibility of
unscrupulous traders cashing in through unlicensed breeding.

Many thanks for the informative perspective.

Mind you... what happens if you breed from such a plant ( as opposed
to merely grow cuttings ) - who would own the rights to the new
variety??

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk [/b][/quote]


If you breed from the plant, you have a differnet selection of alleles and so it is not the same plant. The same if the plant produces a sport - pinks are prone to do this. A pbr protected pink may produce a distinct sport in one shoot - you can propagate that sport with impunity.

A caveat for plants with genes inserted as a genetic modification - the gene may be patented rather than the plant and there may also be contractual issues with your supplier over and above PBR ones .

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 06:32:09 +0200, Peltigera
wrote:


Put in that context, I can see the validity of the PBR - and withdraw
my comments unreservedly. I hadn't considered the possibility of
unscrupulous traders cashing in through unlicensed breeding.

Many thanks for the informative perspective.

Mind you... what happens if you breed from such a plant ( as opposed
to merely grow cuttings ) - who would own the rights to the new
variety??


If you breed from the plant, you have a differnet selection of alleles
and so it is not the same plant. The same if the plant produces a sport
- pinks are prone to do this. A pbr protected pink may produce a
distinct sport in one shoot - you can propagate that sport with impunity.


A caveat for plants with genes inserted as a genetic modification - the
gene may be patented rather than the plant and there may also be
contractual issues with your supplier over and above PBR ones .

Many thanks for the update.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk