After 13 years online, Cubits.org is scheduled to be shut down. Please make sure you have the contact information for all your friends, and that you download whatever content you want from this site.
The only patented plants I have seen are some knockout roses. They were listed as not to be reproduced "asexually" which, to me, meant no reproducing by cuttings. Any seeds would not reproduce as the original product but would be something from the hybridizing. I assume a patented iris could not be divided and resold without a royalty to the patent owner. It could be used for further hybridizing since the outcome would not be as the original. The name would probably be copyrighted also.
I don't know what Schreiners is patenting. I assume the rumor is true, as it came from Dana Borglum, an iris hybridizer. But it's got to be something really special. Maybe they're real close to a true red.
Any guesses?
Bonnie, it's my understanding a patented plant cannot be propagated only asexually. Cuttings would not be allowed. Anyone tell me if I'm wrong?
Deb, sounds like you've got a plan there. And there's nothing wrong with having NOID plants, as long as they are kept as NOID. I wouldn't give that pink one I pictured above away for anything.
My attorney son just sent me a link to a Princeton law school document on plant patents. Here is a quick synopsis.
So far I find that: It is legal. Rhizomes do not fall under an exception for tubers. It would last for 17 years. Hybrids could be created from the patented one with no violation of the patent.
The patents are to protect plant varieties that have been asexually reproduced [reproduced commercially by cuttings, grafting, and budding, but not by seeds], including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings.
It appears to be meant mostly for food products, but applies to many other plants as well.
Plant patents can cause a lot of headaches for the unwary or others thinking they will not be caught in patent violations. The most noteworthy in my area is genetically modified soybeans developed by Monsanto to be tolerant to Roundup. Farmers are forbidden to use leftover beans from one crop year to plant the next year. Many farmers have paid a very steep price for evading the patent. The courts have held the patent to be final, at least until it expires.
Name: Bonnie Sojourner Harris Brake, Arkansas, zone 7 The Magnolia Zone
It will be a sad day for me when I can no longer walk about my garden with a friend and a spade for sharing. Irises make the best passalong plants as they increase on their own, the increases are right at ground level, are easy to lift and can be transplanted anytime during the growing season.
I remember Mama walking about with her little sister (my aunt) who was moving to the west coast and Mama taking up rhizomes of her favorite irises, wrapping them in newspapers and tucking them in a little basket so my aunt would always have some of 'home' with her.
I am glad there is a wonderful variety of irises that have not been patented..... but who's to say they will not be patented in the future and taken out of the public domain.....
I would think the main reason for the patent would be to stop other commercial growers from "jumping on the bandwagon" by buying a few rhizomes, growing them out, and re-selling. With the cost of first year introductions being so high, the price itself is a factor in keeping a "new' iris from being bought, propagated and then resold by very many competing nurseries. But ,if it is a real standout plant....maybe that "real' red that everyone wants...the chance for monetary gain would be high enough to justify "Mom &Pop Iris" investing in a dozen rhizomes, for growth and resale. The patent would give Schreiner's the legal means to stop that, and thus keep the price of the new intro at a high level for a MUCH longer time. If "Arlyn" bought one from them, and passed along the "babies" to his friends, I doubt Schreiner's would take much notice, or care very much......unless "Arlyn" , or his friends ,started to make a big deal about it on Cubits, or ATP, or started to "sell" some .Then ,I'm sure ,the "Iris lawyers
would be knocking on his door, if for no other reason than to use him as an example! But, as was said before...Imagine yourself the hybridizer of an iris. You have invested several (and possibly MANY!) years of time and testing, and a lot of money , into perfecting your iris, then, unless you "introduce" yourself, you have to "share" the first profits with the iris grower who is going to introduce for you....and then, in about 3 years, there are 8 other growers selling "your" iris, at a fraction of the intro price, and in about 5 years,people can by it at Wally World, in bin, for $1.99.....wouldn't like it very much, would you?!....Arlyn
Arlyn is correct. You get to the point that you’ve invested time and money and other people are selling your product and you earn nothing. Do you continue or spend your time doing something else that earns you a living?
I’ll admit, I’m biased because I make my living in the music and publishing fields, which has lost out to the “ it should all be free†mentality. As a result I know hundreds of talented writers and musicians who work day jobs instead of creating. Guess who suffers?
I think the hybridizers should have a few exclusive selling years.
Name: Debra Garland, TX (Dallas) Service dogs: Angels with paws.
Same concept as the copyright on written publications, I think. In most cases, as Arlyn says, patents and such are to prevent unauthorized sales of a protected product or invention, and it is also to say, "this is unique" so that the originator can reap the benefits of a lot of hard work,like Tesla's machines or de Mestral's Velcro. But no matter what, pass-along plants will still be a time-honored tradition that should stand up just fine.
You are free to choose. You are not, however, free from the consequences of your choice.
I agree that hybridizers should have some exclusive selling years. They should be rewarded monetarily for their work. If the hybridizer prefers to have someone else introduce his/her creations, then that is their decision to divide the profits rather than do all the work of lining out, growing, dividing and running a retail business.
But -- I think that seventeen years is too long. Most people -- myself included -- simply cannot or will not spend $65.00 for a rhizome, especially since rhizomes can easily die in weather years like this one. Those of us in this group wait for the price of a cultivar to get down to an affordable level -- and I think seventeen years is too long to have to wait. There are lots of us. I think this would put a real crimp in the sale of Irises -- so how would the hibridizer benefit under those circumstances?
I think it would be better to let the free commerce system work, with the hybridizer protected against competitors diluting their profits. Competitors should have to pay royalties to the hybridizer on the sale of every rhizome. How that could be monitored and policed I have no idea.
Every day is a second chance. Every day is precious time.
Well stated Mary Ann. That is why I said I would not have a patented plant, but did not elaborate the reasons-17 years, high initial cost, etc.
I have a daughter who composes/writes music so fully understand the need to protect creations. My sister wrote a song many years ago, did not copyright it and about 3 years later found it in a songbook attributed to someone else who did copyright it. The time and effort expended for a creation should be reimbursed to encourage creativity.
Just as a personal opinion, I think a copyright of the name is more enforceable than a patent on the named item. In instances of commercial growers or vendors selling a patented product, a fair royalty could be assessed for each plant sold. The end results would be for the hybridizer to be rewarded for his/her efforts and expenditures.
I do have a few NOIDs. Sometimes I move irises to a random spot in the back of my garden when I need to make room for new ones and I don't have the heart to trash them. I totally agree with Dave, if the government gets involved, I am avoiding it. I just wish there was some way that hybridizers could be rewarded for their efforts. I have purchased Keppel irises from other commercial growers and really think he should be able to get royalty for irises sold with his name on them. Even if it was only a small amount, at least he would get something. I know how I would feel if I ever introduced an iris and a few years down the road a lot of different vendors were selling it and keeping all of the profit, but then that would probably open up a lot of problems for everyone involved. I will just keep buying them and enjoying them anyway.
I really don't care what there names are. I have a few named iris. When I moved from Va. I lost most of the name tags and this winter I lost a bunch of iris and the deer helped me with a few that did have name tags
But, I love them all equal No mater what the name They are all Beautiful
