CULT: Patently Confused
- To: iris-talk@onelist.com
- Subject: CULT: Patently Confused
- From: v* l*
- Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 16:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: vince lewonski <vincelewonski@yahoo.com>
> In a message dated 8/15/99 2:58:08 PM Eastern Daylight
> Time,
> mlowe@worldiris.com writes:
>
> << Question: isn't 'Yosemite Sam' a cartoon character?
> From: Iarejan@aol.com
>
> many companies simply go ahead with the use and wait to
> see if anyone objects
> with a cease and desist order. Then you just stop using
> the name and
> nothing happens.
> It's when you don't stop using the name or copyright
> likeness that they get
> upset and further legal action is taken.
>
In a similar vein - I was in Memphis this spring, and
visited a historic house. (The Hunt-Phelan House). In it,
they had a patent displayed that a previous owner of the
house had obtained for a genetic sport of a rose from his
garden. I think the patent was from around 1950.
If you can patent a rose, you should be able to patent
an iris, right? Has patent law been changed since to
prevent a plant from being patented now? Would the patent
prevent anyone else from selling "your" iris? 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?
BTW, Kodak has a patent on the color yellow that they
use for their boxes...could you patent a color on an iris?
Deep waters, and a topic that may result in getting a lot
more lawyers involved in irises - one way or another...
;=)
===
Vince Lewonski
vincelewonski@yahoo.com
Secane, PA Zone 6
"Here come Ol' Flattop!"
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
ONElist: the best place to EXPLORE topics, SHARE ideas, and
CONNECT to people with the same interests.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
