Re: Hosta 'Cathy's Clown'

my point which wasn't completely responsive to ur
situation was  don't bring hillsides name into the
problem because;
not everyone will understand that they had no part in
the problem and my be angry at them. u know how rumors
start and get blown out of all reason.
i have had exactly the same thing happen to me so i
really do understand ur situation and it is such a
chicken shit thing to do. it would make me as angry as
u are about it, just don't hurt anyone else

--- Chick <chick@bridgewoodgardens.com> wrote:
> 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
> 
=== 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
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index