Re: Hosta 'Cathy's Clown'
- Subject: Re: Hosta 'Cathy's Clown'
- From: C* <c*@bridgewoodgardens.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:25:17 -0400
I appreciate your sympathy Mary, especially since I know we don't always agree on that "right and wrong" thing.
Butch apparently feels that I'm accusing people of misdeeds, when I tried to make it clear that I don't blame anyone for this except the person who purposfully sold plants they knew were not for sale. I know who did it, and since none of you know, I think it's clear that I haven't accused anyone, fairly or unfairly.
The whole point is that nobody can be blamed for buying, selling, trading, or whatever if they don't know that the plant was stolen. It's up to me to make sure that it's known. How'm I doin'?
Chick
Mary Chastain wrote:
Chick, unless a person has had a plant taken without permission they may not understand just how violated the hybridizers feels. I understand very well. It has happened to me too many times. I have found TC of my plants on sale on Ebay. These plants had never been given away or sold. I did not place the plant in TC yet others are selling it. Over the past 10 years I have lost thousands of dollars worth of plants. On two occasions I had new introductions ready for release when everything was taken except the display plants in the garden. At one time I lost 75 plants at a value of 75.00 each. To me this all goes back to some things that were being discussed in the spring. Right is right and wrong is wrong and no amount of excuses will make it better. I am sorry about your plant. I also feel that some need to examine their attitudes of right and wrong. Mary
-----Original Message----- From: owner-hosta-open@hort.net [o*@hort.net]On Behalf Of Chick Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 6:43 PM To: hosta-open@hort.net Subject: Re: Hosta 'Cathy's Clown'
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.
Now the bullshit question. I confess I did not invent the knife. My brother did. Since he didn't patent it or copyright the name I stole it.
--- Chick <chick@bridgewoodgardens.com> wrote:
I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more. I think you miss the point. Patenting has nothing to do with the issue. If the plant had been patented it would not have changed the sequence of events or my complaint in any manner. This is my plant and whoever got the plant from me did so without my permission. That's called theft. I'm not accusing Hilltop of theft, or anyone who bought it from Hilltop, but somewhere in the past you have to get to the person who first got the plant without my permission and that is theft. Someone knew they were taking a plant they did not have any right to. I don't care how may people bought it, eventually in the provinence of the plant you have to get back to someone who did not buy it because I owned it and I didn't sell it to them. The fact that the plant exists does not mean that you can have it if you want it. Every plant of 'Cathy's Clown' in the world belonged to me, and I did not sell it to anyone, so how did the person that first obtained the plant get it. I specifically stated that I do not blame the people who bought the plant unknowingly, but if you buy stolen merchandise, that does not change the fact that what you bought was stolen. I do not know who stole it, or from where, but I do know it was my plant and I did not authorize anyone to distribute it. Patenting has nothing to do with the issue. The only legal remedy in this case would be prosecution for theft, which is a bit far-fetched, even if I knew who took it and could prove it. Now you are telling me I have no right to gripe unless I prosecute the thief. Excuse my language but I can't think of a better response than bull shit.
My grip has plenty of weight, unless you think it's ok for me to come into your garden and take what I please, or come into your lab uninvited and steal your knife before you decide you're ready to sell it and get rich. And if I come to steal your plants, I don't really care if they're patented.
Chick
michael shelton wrote:
Chick there are some ways to protect your real and intellectual property and you already know what they are but your unwilling to jump through the hoops. Yet, you want it to work the way you want it to work. Don't take this as unsympathetic but all this discussion leads to nothing unless you follow the legal remedies to get what you want.
There is 1 way to keep control of the plant which is a patent. The other way is a trademark which may help you keep control of the name.
Your gripe has no weight except to throw dirt on someone who has done nothing but buy a plant called 'Cathy's Clown" and sell a plant called 'Cathy Clown'. You have not established any ownership in the plant or the name that they sold nor do you have any legal rights to the plant they have (whatever it is).
There are laws to protect your rights and you haven't availed yourself of them yet you want to gripe. Buyer beware, seller beware, owner beware. Housewares is where the money is. I have a houseware I call a knife, great little invention. You can cut bread, meat, your finger. As soon as i get it out of the lab I'll be rich. If someone tries to sell you something called a knife, don't buy it its my mine.
--- NardaA@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/20/2004 11:50:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, chick@bridgewoodgardens.com writes: Until I publish the name or register the plant, there is nothing to stop you. The name is not what I'm trying to protect. The plant is what's important.
Don't get me started on names and registration.
Chick, register it quick!
When we were at Wade Gardens a couple of weeks ago my Daughter saw "Spellbound" in the garden so she put it on her list. When she asked Van about it he said that it did not come back from TC looking like the mother plant. But he gave her one as a gift, we can call it "Spellbound" as he is going to rename the original plant. The plant that she receive is very beautiful, but this just complicates things so much! Not a chance of getting a piece of the original plant.
Chick, NOW, I am going to have to go to one of those music websites to listen to Cathy's Clown-Herman's Hermits? I want to sing it but the words won't come to me, nah, Gary Lewis? The Everly Brothers? Never mind, I will just hum the Herman Hermits ditty!
Narda
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hosta 'Cathy's Clown'
- From: m* s* &*
- Re: Hosta 'Cathy's Clown'
- References:
- RE: Hosta 'Cathy's Clown'
- From: &* C* &*
- RE: Hosta 'Cathy's Clown'
- Prev by Date: Re: Hosta 'Cathy's Clown'
- Next by Date: Early Registrations... and Cathy's Clown
- Previous by thread: RE: Hosta 'Cathy's Clown'
- Next by thread: Re: Hosta 'Cathy's Clown'