patented or trademarked orchids.

[orchidsarefun]

Originally Posted by orchids3

You would be suprised to know how many low life people there are out there who would steal the work of others. Good hybrids are made by intelligent people who invest their talents and resources often over a life time, only to find that the effort is hijacked and all profit from a lifetime of work stolen by the scum of the trade. They should enjoy at least same protection as a rock star. We hear all about copies of recordings or computer software but the same protection should apply to hybrids.
Most of us just want a collection of the better plants but others want to make a million dollars from their purchase or some undeserved credit. It leads to the making of triploids that do not reproduce or the marketing of unmarked plants. It is all a terrible detriment to those of us who love growing and studying the plants we buy.
Some think that making a deserved profit is wrong. It is the same kind of rift that says corporations should not make a profit. All part of the struggle that is going on - but that is close enough to politics for this forum.

Yep - I have already experienced ploidy issues. There is an attempt at a ploidy database but its not comprehensive- and probably never will be.
Confirmed Ploidy Database | ORCHID VAULT

[camille1585]

I agree that hybridizers should be able to protect their creations, but patents are not the way to go! It shouldn't be legal for plants. Plant Breeders Rights offer the same protection, BUT allow the plant to be used in other breeding programs.

In any case, even with protection, it doesn't stop ill intentioned people. A veggie breeding company I worked at has hybrid tomato seed production outsourced to china. Basically they provide the pure parental lines, the chinese grow them out, make the cross and produce the F1 seed. The trouble is that the chinese are taking cuttings from the parent plants, to be able to illegally produce and sell the hybrid themselves. The trouble is that even with the protection, taking legal action is apparently very very difficult....

[orchids3]

Camille,
You may be right but I wonder if "Plant Breeder rights" are the same for the USA as they are for Europe? I too believe that "The Patent" is not the way to go. I know of one and it did not do much for the creator.
There must be a win win solution to all this. As it stands now - nobody is winning.

[camille1585]

Originally Posted by orchids3

Camille,
You may be right but I wonder if "Plant Breeder rights" are the same for the USA as they are for Europe? I too believe that "The Patent" is not the way to go. I know of one and it did not do much for the creator.
There must be a win win solution to all this. As it stands now - nobody is winning.

PBR is worldwide, it is the same rules and protection in all countries that adhere to it. Check out the wikipedia page for more info on how it works. They summarize it pretty well.

[lambelkip]

Originally Posted by camille1585

I agree that hybridizers should be able to protect their creations, but patents are not the way to go! It shouldn't be legal for plants. Plant Breeders Rights offer the same protection, BUT allow the plant to be used in other breeding programs.

I think you misundestand plant patents. the patent only covers asexual reproduction (divisions and clones)
sexual reproduction is not restricted - if you cross a patented plant with another plant, you end up with a new, unpatented plant. You can even make a self cross of the plant without restriction.

Plant Breeder's Rights (under the Plant Variety Protection Act in the United States) protect seed or tuber propagated plants. Only the registered owner of the variety can reproduce those types of plants (no self crosses, divisions or clones are allowed). They can still be used to make new hybrids without restriction.

[camille1585]

I don't think I'm wrong. I know a case of a breeding company which used a patented aphid resistant lettuce to breed their own aphid resistant lettuce. Because their new plant contains the resistance found in the original patented plant, they are paying royalties. But perhaps EU patent law differs, which is why you say I'm wrong!

[lambelkip]

in the case you are referring to, the lettuce was covered by a utility patent, not a plant patent. The patent does not cover the plant, just the method used to create it. since the breeding company used the method developed by the patent holder, they have to pay royalties.

[camille1585]

Originally Posted by lambelkip

in the case you are referring to, the lettuce was covered by a utility patent, not a plant patent. The patent does not cover the plant, just the method used to create it. since the breeding company used the method developed by the patent holder, they have to pay royalties.

There's no way for the breeding process itself to be patentable, backcrossing, selfing or whatever have always been around. If that were patented, every breeder in the world would be paying royalties!

[lambelkip]

you're right, it's the plant that's patented - but it's patented as an "invention", not as a plant. The patent was allowed because the claims in the patent were specific enough that they could not be considered an obvious use of an existing process. the patent number in that case is EP921720 B2
the lettuce is also covered as an invention under a utiity patent in the US. (patent number 5,977,443)
it is not covered by a plant patent.

[orchidsarefun]

Originally Posted by lambelkip

you're right, it's the plant that's patented - but it's patented as an "invention", not as a plant. The patent was allowed because the claims in the patent were specific enough that they could not be considered an obvious use of an existing process. the patent number in that case is EP921720 B2
the lettuce is also covered as an invention under a utiity patent in the US. (patent number 5,977,443)
it is not covered by a plant patent.

thanks for all your input on this subject.........
You would really be the "man" if you had a list of orchids that have been patented