RE: patents
- To: "'Harold Peters'" , sibrob
- Subject: RE: [sibrob] patents
- From: J* H*
- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:45:01 -0700
- Encoding: 32 TEXT
----------
From: Harold Peters
>>> Simplistically plants that clone them selves like irises are not
patentable. Something like roses which do not naturally clone themselves
can be patented. <<<
This isn't exactly accurate....
Vinca minor "Ralph Shugert" has been granted a patent. Right now it's
happily propagating itself all over my lower garden.
>>>Enforcing patent privledges on something that clones itself is a losing
proposition.<<<
Think in terms of $ and not plants. Patent privileges ensure that royalties
are paid to the hybridizer for a certain amount of time (usually 20 years
if enforced). Even if the royalty per plug is 3 or 4 cents, you're talking
about thousands of dollars. Not sure how anyone else might feel about it,
but if I'm the hybridizer in question, I'd rather be able to use that money
to support my family rather than the stockholders of some large company.
As far as I know, govt doesn't get involved in any more than researching
and granting patents. Enforcement is up to the owner of the patent and I'm
sure there are a lot of attorneys who would love the chance to "help" them
assert their rights. :)
Christy Hensler
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you love your Mother...
Click Here
http://click.egroups.com/1/3653/3/_/496957/_/956857668/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
