Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On 10/5/05 10:56, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote: In article , Sacha writes: | | We're talking from two different viewpoints. I am simply saying that if a | plant breeder has rights over a plant, only he or she has those rights. And | if someone propagates 144 of N. 'Bluebird' plants and sell them for *their* | profit, they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom, rightfully, | they should be sending the 30p or the 10p or the 50p per plant that is | their royalty. I'm talking about propagating a plant which is under PBR | specifically, and selling it as that plant, not just something raised in a | yoghurt tub. Sorry, Sacha, it is nothing to do with viewpoints. I am talking about facts. I am simply saying that if a plant breeder has rights over a plant, only he or she has those rights. That is a simplification of the law, but is roughly correct. It is correct enough to allow the breeder or his agents to stop those who are breeding from the mother plants without licence to do so. If ..., they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom, rightfully, ... That is factually wrong. Let us ignore the morality implied by the "rightfully", as that IS a matter of viewpoint - and I doubt that you actually know mine on this matter :-) Not entirely - I am aware that some people think plants don't 'belong' to anyone but if that attitude prevails, new hybrids and new varieties simply will cease to come along. It costs someone money to produce them on a small scale for evaluation and then a large scale for selling and that someone or someones have the law behind them in terms of having the right to be paid for their work through royalties. I think I do know your attitude to this because I think you expressed it once before when this came up but I might be misremembering. But they have NOT taken the profit FROM the breeder unless they have prevented the breeder making a comparable number of sales. They may have made an illegal profit, but in general the large majority does not correspond to a loss of profit for the breeder. Some may, but typically only a small proportion. You are not allowing for e.g. Mail order sales. If a plant is not available locally, which this illegal one would be, most people who really want it will find somewhere to obtain it by mail order, as we see on here quite often. They then buy it from a nursery which has paid its dues to the supplier which get passed back to the breeder. While I agree absolutely that a few plants sold here or there doesn't bother anyone, the fact is that those plants are sold illegally, just as the rip-off copies of the Workmate would have been. Just recently we found somewhere selling Bluebird and enquired of the agent as to whether these people had paid for the right to sell it. They hadn't and were asked to stop selling it or to obtain future plants from the wholesalers. This was a small nursery so the numbers being sold ran only into hundreds or possibly thousands, not just a few at a plant sale. As I say, it would have to be someone very pernickety who objected to that. snip We could argue this 'til the cows come home and I'm not prepared to bore us all with that. I'll content myself with saying to the OP that selling a few PBR protected plants for charity almost certainly won't upset anyone but making your own sideline business out of someone else's PBR protected plants almost certainly would. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Selling Plants for charity | United Kingdom | |||
Charity Plant Stall | Gardening | |||
Worm farms to require licences | United Kingdom | |||
Gardening for Charity? | Edible Gardening | |||
Mahonia "Charity" source? | Gardening |