hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: Hosta 'Cathy's Clown'

  • Subject: Re: Hosta 'Cathy's Clown'
  • From: michael shelton <wilddog_202@yahoo.com>
  • Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:43:46 -0700 (PDT)

My point was and is if hillside did nothing wrong keep
their name out of it. You can still tell your tale
without using anyone's name but the guilty. And you
know that you must be very careful when you accuse
someone of wrong doing outside of a courtroom.

I have had plants in tc and know what i said before
about keeping ownership of your plants is difficult
and is a true statment. I don't like it any more than
you do. Tony Avent talked to me about patenting plants
and why he felt if was not usually worth the trouble
and even when you do that keeping control of your own
hard work is still DIFFICULT (I'M NOT STUPID EITHER).
Shouting does feel good, doesn't it, but I don't know
if it makes your argument any more valid. So I stand
by my statement that it is difficult. You prove my
point with the efforts you went to with Sargent
Peppers, etc. And I agree that your methods are about
as effective as one can get. BTW I don't and didn't
think you were stupid but I must have touched a
sensitive area. So, I'll try to be more delicate in
the future.

--- Chick <chick@bridgewoodgardens.com> wrote:
>  I'm sorry, but apparently I'm not making myself
> clear.  I don't care
> about the name.  I recognized in my first post that
> if you don't register
> the name and someone else uses it, that's just your
> tough luck.  It's
> happened to me many times and that's just the way it
> goes. I've been
> around long enough to know that you don't freak out
> just because someone
> sells a plant with a name you wanted to use. So
> let's get past your
> theory that someone just happened to use the same
> name on their plant. 
> Your statement that the whole area of ownership is
> very difficult is, I'm
> sorry, more bull shit. I am not stupid and I don't
> go around making these
> kind of accusations without knowing what I'm talking
> about. I guess you
> could toss it off as just circumstantial evidence,
> but the plant looks
> exactly like my plant named 'Cathy's Clown',
> happened by coincidence to
> be labeled 'Cathy's Clown', and was obtained by him
> at the lab where I
> was having my 'Cathy's Clown' tissue cultured. 
> Granted, it's not a
> slam-dunk, but as far as circumstantial evidence
> goes, we've invaded
> countries on less.  I do however, appreciate your
> sympathy. .
> 
> I recognize your sympathy for Oscar at Hillside
> also, and your fear that
> he is being maligned.  That's why I put in my first
> post on the subject
> that I had spoken to him, did not hold him
> responsible for any
> wrongdoing, and mentioned that he was going to stop
> selling it now that
> he knows that it has not been released.  Yes,
> Michael, I know it's my
> plant. Oscar knows it's my plant. I know where it
> came from.  I know how
> it happened. And I'm not naming names to reassure
> you that I know what
> I'm talking about because I can't prove anything. 
> And the reason I used
> Hillside's name on the internet is because Hillside
> sold the plant.  I
> wanted the people who bought it to know what was
> going on.  Oscar has
> enough integrity to know that what happened is not
> right and knows that
> he shouldn't continue to sell the plant now that he
> knows it wasn't
> released.  My expectation was that the people who
> bought the plant would
> feel the same way.  What I don't understand is your
> making it your cause
> to justify something that can't be justified. 
> 
> I am not against patenting plants.  We have had this
> discussion on the
> forum many times.  But you are also wrong in stating
> that patenting is
> the only way to protect a plant. My guess is that
> you have never patented
> a plant, though I must admit that like you I am
> making assumptions
> without any knowledge of the facts.  Not all plants
> deserve patenting,
> and not all plants qualify for a patent. Far more
> plants are introduced
> that are not patented than those that are.  It's not
> because we're all
> stupid.  People, including myself, make money from
> unpatented plants
> every day. Most of Solberg's plants are not
> patented. Most of Tony
> Avent's plants are not patented.  None of my plants
> are patented. Very
> few of us patent plants.  Do you think we are all
> stupid?  Only plants
> that are going to sell in large volume justify the
> time and expense of
> patenting.  You can make money on unpatented plants
> simply by controlling
> their distribution long enough to make your
> reasonable profit with the
> recognition that if the plant is good enough, it
> will in time be widely
> propagated.  I have done this quite successfully
> with 'Satisfaction',
> 'Sergeant Pepper' and 'Surfer Girl' without
> difficulty.  The difference
> is, I decided when and to whom the plants were sold
> for long enough to
> make my profit because nobody stole the plants from
> the lab and released
> the plant before I did. Patent or no, if somebody
> sells something that
> they stole from you, your ability to make a profit
> on the transaction is
> severely limited.   Your statement that you have no
> control over the
> plant once it leaves the lab makes me wonder whether
> you understand what
> I'm saying.  IT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO LEAVE THE LAB. 
> EVERY SINGLE EXISTING
> PLANT OF 'CATHY'S CLOWN' IN THE ENTIRE WORLD
> BELONGED TO ME OR WAS GIVEN
> (NOT SOLD)  TO SOMEONE WITH THE EXPRESS AGREEMENT
> THAT IT WAS NOT TO BE
> GIVEN TO ANY ONE WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.  NOBODY HAD
> ANY RIGHT TO TAKE IT
> FROM THE LAB BUT ME.  If you don't understand this
> point, then I'm
> wasting my time talking to you.  I'm sorry, but it
> seems so simple to me.
> 
> As a theoretical mind game, if someone else had
> named a different plant
> 'Cathy's Clown' and I got all bent out of shape
> because I didn't have
> enough sense to make sure of the facts, I would
> agree that I would be
> stupid and you would be right. But as I have
> explained, that is not what
> happened.  Trust me.
> 
> As to you're suggestion that a copyright might have
> kept the plant
> protected, I would suggest that you read an
> excellent article by Tony
> Avent on copyrighting plant names,
> http://www.plantdelights.com/Tony/trademark.html to
> understand why no
> hosta names have been copyrighted in many years.
> 
> Chick
> 
> michael shelton wrote:
> 
>   I want to go back and see if I can understand what
> you
>   couldn't disagree with me more on.
>   
>   Was when i said that i was not unsympathetic.
>   
>   Was it that a patent is the only way that you can
>   protect your intellectual property or that a
> copyright
>   is a way to protect a name.
>   
>   Have you established that the plant that hillside
> sold
>   is in fact a piece of your 'Cathy's Clown' or one
> of
>   the plantlets from the lab that did the tissue
>   culture. If not then they may have used the name
> you
>   wanted (and I think you have a right to it) but
> not
>   your plant and in that case they have not sold
> stolen
>   property. This is a question?????
>   
>   You have published (the internet publishes our
> words
>   for all to see) and involved hillside in the
> selling
>   of stolen property (however they received it).
> Maybe I
>   missed it but have you proved that the plant or
> plants
>   (not the name, thats another matter) they sold are
>   actually or ever were yours.
>   
>   I repeat "I am not unsympathetic with your
> problem".
>   
>   This whole area of ownership of plants is very
>   difficult and the only way i can see anyone
> benefiting
>   from their work is to patent a plant. Then the
> only
>   thing you can realistically control is the patent
>   payment attached to the purchase from a lab. Once
> it
>   leaves the lab you have very little control and
> could
>   not control the reproduction without a lot of
> legal
>   expense.
>   
>   The reason i did not and still do not like the
>   original post is that you use someone's name
>   (hillside) on the internet.
>   
> 
=== message truncated ===
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN





 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index