Copyright or patent?

Dont worry about it

HDD's right don't worry about it, if you ever decide to register anything with a patented plant as a parent just use the name UNKNOWN instead of the patented plants name.

man i got to love you guys with your corupt minds lol. ill keep that in mind i dont know why i didnt think of it. ok ill catch you guys later

Nothing corrupt about it. The laws are intended to address people who would commercially produce the plant in large quantities(tissue culture)...not a back yard gardner

Every patented plant tag that I've seen says "asexual reproduction prohibited". So breeding wouldn't be a violation.

I fully agree with Bromadams

Tomas

asexual reproduction is tissue culture

Obviously, growing from pups is also asexual reproduction. Also obviously, while prohibited it will happen.

Derek wrote this: AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION

Pups are a natural occurence...best tell the plants not to produce them....and you would have to have a lot of plants to make pups before impacting the market

I have read a few plant patents, and some go so far as to stipulate that they cannot be used for breeding at all. The real idea is like HDD said to keep people from mass producing them for sale and not paying the royalties.

I keep it simple by not purchasing patented plants.

fair enough thanks guys ill keep all what you guys have said in mind

I have heard that a certain plant patent holder in Miami has been known to call around and ask to buy patented plants from nurseries that haven't paid for the right. I didn't hear what he does if they offer the unlicensed plants for sale.

We were trying to figure out what he typically charges and somebody thought it might be $0.25 per plant for the right to sell them but wasn't sure.

People are wise to that ploy. Thats why you see similar plants with different names on them. Growing conditions vary, so an accurate ID is impossible. Unless you were selling a significant number of the plant..it wouldn't be worth a law suit and the big guy bringing the suit gets a lot of negitive public relations

Are you suggesting that $0.25 is prohibitive? If not, what would be? I'm thinking that the value of a well known name would almost certainly be worth 2 bits. I've never yet sold a brom so I'm no expert on price vs cost.

Well if someone grows 4 pups...the big copyright holder wants to sue for a buck?

Really it's just to keep you from selling the plants.

I do know a Nursery Man that has a Patent on a Juniper, he was waundering around a Walmart and noticed they had about 50 of them and found out that their source had not paid the royalties. His lawyer then contacted the grower, which they ended up taking to court. He did collect for every Juniper they sold, and legal fees. We are talking about thousands of plants here.

I don't see them coming to someone like us for Patent infringement, but like I said, I don't buy them. I have 1 patented Daylily, and I do use it for hybridizing. I would never sell any of it, it has nice nice branching and a high bud count, but it's not that great a flower. If I register and introduce anything from it, it will be listed as an unknown parent.

STELLA D'ORO is one of the most famous ones, It's a nice small golden yellow, with nice branching and bud counts, but it doesn't give up it's color, and is a self pollenator. It may be the greatest landscape Daylily ever produced, it reblooms almost nonstop, and I have seen it blooming in early December here in sheltered spots. Personaly, I wouldn't have it again, it's all over in mass plantings, and usually by the middle of July, I'm sick of looking at it. The hybridizer made a lot of money on this one, but it is the exception.

Good plants don't need to be patented to reward the hybridizer though, new Daylily introductions are selling from $50.00 to $300.00 per plant. If it is a good plant and the hybridizer builds up enough stock before releasing it, they can also enjoy some profits, (if it is at all possible), some hybridizers don't build up enough stock to meet demands, and the prices remain high on their plants for a few years. If the plant is a good parent in some cases they will sell for more than the original price and actually increase in value.

Wow, I know nothing about patent law, but I'm guessing if someone can prove you knowingly lied on a patent claim by using UNKNOWN as one of the parents the least of your concerns would be the original hybridizer coming after you.....perhaps the federal govt would be of greater concern. Very, very few plants are patented because they are basically worthless beyond the first wave of sales, but if you really feel you have a million $$ plant on your hands why not do things legally and give the original hybridizer the credit he/she deserves rather than stealing from them?? Just asking :o) Dan

How would they prove you lied? If a hummingbird or bee were to transfer pollen from a patented plant to your non patented mother plant, how are you supposed to know?

I really don't see how they would ever even have a clue that their patented plant was used in a cross. It's not like you can look at a plant and say "that plant just has to have been bred out of...". So just how is anyone going to figure it out. I have many plants out in my garden that I don't have the names for, and none of them are patented.

Ok so if you own a patented plant and it increases by any means you have probably violated the the patent laws. The plant police will not hunt you down, just don't try to sell any on ebay, and by the way there are people selling patented plants on ebay.

I have purchased bromeliad pups of plants that I later found out were patented, both mail order from reputable sellers and at the World Conferences too, but nobody ever said they were patented or wrote it on the tag. I'm sure the breeders must be aware of this kind of thing and don't choose to bother with it at that level. I don't have a problem with honoring the patent, but what am I going to do, track down the hybridizer and send them a quarter every time I sell a pup? Their main concern, as HDD says, is collecting royalties from tissue culture propagation.

On the other hand we tried to order some patented Globbas several years ago, and were told that not only couldn't we propagate them but the guy got angry when we said we might use them as cut flowers. He said that was prohibited too and he never sent our order. Just as well, we had similar varieties that actually turned out to be better. These weren't hybrids, though. They were wild collected species from which several clones were selected and patented. Up until then I didn't know you could patent a species. It doesn't seem right to me to patent something you didn't create.

At the risk of sounding tu-pid...Lisa what if you and I go on a collecting trip(expensive)and get the same species plant...we can patent it too? Just call it something else since we probally didnt find their exact collection site.

HDD, that's kind of what happened with the Globbas, although we didn't go on a collecting trip. Through another source we did get a couple of other clones of the same (still undescribed) species as the patented ones, and have named them and have been propagating and selling them for several years now without any concerns about patents or royalties. I actually like our clones better, and I have been hybridizing with them too.

I've got no interest in trying to patent either the species or the hybrids, though. The initial expense is too great, and unless you can propagate massive quantities yourself before you release them (and get a high price for them), you don't make your money back. Once they're out there they're out there and anybody can do whatever they want whether you like it or not.