|
Post by Not a Number on May 3, 2007 16:36:02 GMT
This is interesting information. Booman (on their website) claims Sarracenia 'Cobra's Nest' is the world's first patented CP. BTW looking a Botanique's website it's actually Sta nardsville, VA . Only one "d"
|
|
flytrap
Full Member
Canadian CP'ers do it in the snow
Posts: 22
|
Post by flytrap on May 4, 2007 14:58:29 GMT
It seems that there are all sorts of efforts these days (in North America anyways) to trademark or own a "name" - take for example, Apple, and the battle that ensued between the Beatles old music label and the computer company.
The same thing for Genetically modified plant material. I recall reading about a big multinational unleashing it's hounds on a poor old farmer up here in Canada - because some flax seed (or was that pollen) from a GMO plant farm had blown over to a neighbouring farmer's yard.
So I pose this question of clonal ownership as I now start seeing cultivar names appearing of various nursery sites. I doubt there's a royalty or enforcement effort, but to also play the devil's advocate... how do you ensure that the cultivar is actually true to it's name? I see this discussion over on the CPUK site regarding S x 'Daniel Rudd' ... it seems that there are some people out there who will attempt to cash in on a "brand".
I also read on one nursery site claiming a N tobaica to be the real McCoy, as according to the nursery, (and I paraphrase here), " ...earlier ...these N tobaicas are 'true form', as the other N tobaicas circulating were actually N ventricosas".
So, aside from a commercial perspective, I do see some value in name ownership as it would prevent fraudulent branding from less scrupulous nurseries. But for now... I believe that if we support the established suppliers ( and there are only a handful worldwide) who have a good (reliable) track record, that would be good for everyone in the hobby.
It will be interesting to see how all of this pans out, as I keep seeing all sorts of silly names being assigned to the monotypic species Dionea. And how a lot of this "branding" is just plain marketing.
|
|
|
Post by Not a Number on May 4, 2007 15:40:42 GMT
It looks like there is a trademarked Little Bug Pitcher Plant series from University of North Carolina at Charlotte (Charlotte, NC) and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Chapel Hill, NC) Patented:Sarracenia 'Redbug', Mellichamp; T. Lawrence (Charlotte, NC), Gardner; Robert K. (Chapel Hill, NC), Patent# PP13,412 Dec 24, 2002 license is required for propagation. Propagate through Tissue Culture. Applied for / Pending:Sarracenia 'Doodlebug' Sarracenia 'Lady Bug' A brief guide to US Plant Patents: planthaven.com/plantpatents.html
|
|
|
Post by rsivertsen on May 4, 2007 15:57:54 GMT
I'm amazed at how N. tobaica can be confused with N. ventricosa! They are totally different in all appearances, even without pitchers! N. tobaica has the unique stem/petiole connection (aside from their pitchers that may resemble N. gracilis pitchers), that makes it difficult to see which way the stem is growing! I've had this plant growing in my greenhouse for a few years, and when it goes into climbing form, I have to look closely at the stem to see which direction to pull on them to redirect them into better places.
|
|
|
Post by glider14 on May 27, 2007 4:07:33 GMT
wait...so if i wanted to grow this plant ('redbug')... i would have to have a license?
Alex
|
|
matti
Full Member
Posts: 216
|
Post by matti on May 27, 2007 4:09:46 GMT
wait...so if i wanted to grow this plant ('redbug')... i would have to have a license? Alex No, You would need one to propagate it and sell it. "redbug ™" as the name is trade marked.
|
|
|
Post by Vater Araignee on Jun 7, 2008 16:45:06 GMT
<RANT> Patenting nature is morally reprehensible and Monsanto is the worst offender of all. You know Monsanto, those EFER's that own Roundup and all Roundup ready crops. Oh and sue every seed saving farmer that gets Monsanto garbage spilled or cross pollinated onto their property. Patent law as of 1995 (i beleave) allows these bastiches to hold it for 20 years, regain the patent by incrementation (adding a new gene, even a useless one) and now even patent naturally occurring strains. I understand a need to have exclusive rights for a number of years to allow the creator recoup and profit from their creation but the flax and canola incidents in Canada and the corn incidents in the U.S.A. is just plane evil. I expect that one day every one of us that sells a CP will find ourselves in court because a multinational megaconglomerate decided they where going to patent every CP they could get their hands on. Not only would this mean bye bye U.S. and Canadian retailers but if those two governments and Monsanto have their way, bye bye world wide. Thats right these two governments wish to apply their patent law world wide. </RANT>
|
|