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: CULT: Patently Confused


From: Bill Shear <BILLS@hsc.edu>


>   If you can patent a rose, you should be able to patent
>an iris, right?


Yes, you can.  And Schreiners' patented at least two irises some 30 years
ago, one of which was 'Giant Rose.'  I suspect the patent process proved to
be unworkable and unprofitable, and was summarily abandoned by iris
breeders.  I know of no iris patents that have been issued since that one
attempt.

Has patent law been changed since to
>prevent a plant from being patented now?

No, you can still patent a plant (or even a gene!) according to the
relevant patent law.

Would the patent
>prevent anyone else from selling "your" iris?

No, it would not, but you would have to license the sale to that person,
and they would pay you a royalty on each plant sold.  This would apply only
to vegetative reproduction.  Once purchased, the iris could be used in
another person's breeding program without a royalty.


Is it the
>genetic makeup of the iris that carries the patent, or does
>it include the name (i.e. YOSEMITE SAM)? Could I suddenly
>decide to take out a patent on, say BREAKERS, because
>Schreiner's has failed to do so?

The patent applies to the iris itself and all of its vegetative increase,
as well as the name.  Incidentially, names are copyrighted, not patented.
There is  a difference--you can patent an invention or a process, but
intellectual property is copyrighted.

>   BTW, Kodak has a patent on the color yellow that they
>use for their boxes...could you patent a color on an iris?


Obviously not.  Kodak could not have a patent on the color yellow, but on
the particular dye that is used to color the boxes.  You could use exactly
the same shade of yellow on your boxes, and if you could prove it was
created by a different dye or combination of dyes, have a good legal case
when Kodak sued you.  However, if the particular shade itself were
COPYRIGHTED, you'd be in more trouble because copyright law prevents
duplication by any means.

I checked these answers through an attorney friend, who wishes me to
emphasize that he is NOT a patent or intellectual property lawyer!

My personal opinion is that the Schreiners' experience shows that patenting
an iris is impractical and counterproductive.  First, the plant would have
to be so unique and unusual that other growers would pay the royalty just
to sell it.  That would have to be some crazy iris--a real world-beater
from the get-go.  And how many of those have there been?  I would suspect
that even SNOW FLURRY, STEPPING OUT, BATIK or IMMORTALITY would never have
become popular or widely distributed if they had been patented.  After all,
what became of GIANT ROSE?  It was "unique" because of the huge size of its
blooms.  Anybody grow it today?
Secondly, iris multiply so rapidly that prices drop very significantly in
just a few years.  A patented iris would stay expensive (and therefore not
be much purchased).  Vast amounts of it would be composted each year.

If the early horned irises (a real innovation) had been patented, the
development and popularity of these plants would have been slowed down
completely.

No, patenting might be reasonable for roses and few other ornamentals, but
it is not a productive alternative for irises.

I would strongly urge anyone considering patenting an iris to reconsider.

Bill Shear
Department of Biology
Hampden-Sydney College
Hampden-Sydney VA 23943
(804)223-6172
FAX (804)223-6374
email<bills@hsc.edu>




--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

ONElist members, don't miss out on the latest news at ONElist!
Join our community member news update  
<a href=" http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/onelist_announce "here</A>

------------------------------------------------------------------------





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