6 ms·

Other than the part about reproducing from seeds, this is a pretty standard plant patent situation in the US. There are all sorts of restrictions on what you ca

Other than the part about reproducing from seeds, this is a pretty standard plant patent situation in the US. There are all sorts of restrictions on what you can patent, and the plant patent landscape is quite reasonable (unlike software patents). Plants like the cotton candy grapes in this post are really difficult to develop, and 20 years of legal protection is pretty reasonable. Remember this is agriculture- things move relatively slowly, and you cant corner the market of a variety in 20 years - you probably won't have patent protection by the time a plant reaches max market penetrstion anyway, but you'll have made your money during the first few years. And if you purchase patented varieties of fruit for your home garden (you might already have a couple!) you'll notice the patent fee for them barely registers - shipping costs are probably higher than the patent cost for your new citrus. As I was alluding to though, there are restrictions, including that the plant has to be asexually reproduced and the infringing plant has to be identical to the parent, which does not apply to seed born progeny. Maybe there's some aspect of the plant variety protection act in play - I'm not as familiar with that - or maybe they're referring to using tissue from the aborted seeds present in seedless grapes to tissue culture out a clone, IDK.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Not to mention plants are much harder to clone at scale, since the parent strains can be kept secret which effectively prevents seed propagation. It’s easy to clone one for personal use, but to scale it out for commercial sale is much, much harder (depending on the type of fruit).
- saalweachter 6y ago
  Propagating by cutting is the norm for many (most?) varieties of fruits.
Robotbeat 6y ago
I don't like plant patents like this as they are infringing on natural rights of people that have been around since the invention of agriculture. I grew potatoes in my garden after some store-bought ones developed eyes. It never crossed my mind to check if they were patented first, and it's absurd that I'd have to. The monopolization of everything is insane. We're binding ourselves up tighter and tighter in paper.
- vikramkr 6y ago
  Well, tubers can't be patented, so rest easy. As long as we have a patent system, patenting plants (especially with the heavy restrictions on plant patent eligibility) is a reasonable extension. Since the origin of agriculture, you've had the "right" to copy your neighbor's cool new invention to till the soil better without issues. As a society, we decided that giving inventors patent rights for a limited amount of time is going to encourage innovation and investment into new technology. The founders thought it was important enough that we embed it in our constitution, and since the founding of this country, patents have been a driving force in industry. Maybe there's a better way to support innovation and make investment into r&d happen. I personally don't find the alternative arrangements people have tried so far all that compelling- but im open to the idea that this isn't the best way to do things. For now though, I think I'm getting a good deal out of a patent system where the creator of the cotton candy grape is able to spend 12 years developing a cool new variety because they'll get a return on their investment over the 20 years following their product's launch. Patents paid for a lot of the products I use day to day, and unlike copyright, patents actually expire after a reasonable amount of time.
  - ISL 6y ago
    What makes tubers special in this context?
    - vikramkr 6y ago
      IIRC it has something to do with tubers also being the part of the plant that is used as food[0]. Why is that considered an exception while something cinnamon, where the bark of the plant is eaten and also used in asexual propagation, is not? No clue. Really most of this boils down to "because the law says so" or "because the courts said the law says so." [0] https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/patents/types-of-patents/plant/ https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/patents/types-o...
      - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
        I'm going to guess it has something to do with the process before the product reaches you. If you buy a potato, it, on its own, will reproduce given the right circumstances. You can grow an apple seed, too, though that apple seed isn't likely to grow the same apple. You might get something out of an onion, though it is hard to grow a garden full of them without some work gathering seeds and so on. You an patent certain types of apples, though, and the trees (though not so much what comes from seeds): Eating apples are generally clones. Getting a nice, sweet apple is a lucky thing - Johnny appleseed was realistically spreading cider apples and/or what we would call a crabapple now. In addition, many purchased apple trees are grafted onto different roots to make them more robust. Similar thing with cinnamon. I've never seen fresh cinnamon bark for sale in a spice isle, just like I've never seen an apple branch for sale. Nor rootstock that wasn't an edible plant. Cinnamon bark is, at best, sold dried - and depending on the variety, it isn't even the entire bark, but just the inner layer. This isn't really what folks use to cultivate cinnamon, by the way [1], and i'm guessing that a lot of cinnamon patents are more geared towards extracting oils and drying/harvest methods. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinnamon#Cultivation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinnamon#Cultivation
montecarl 6y ago
It would seem more reasonable to limit commercial activities (i.e. resale) than the rights of individuals to grow food.
- gruez 6y ago
  >than the rights of individuals to grow food. Is it really a tragedy that your average home gardener can't grow cotton candy grapes after he bought some from the grocery store? It's already pretty hard to do that, given that many (most?) of the commercial varieties are hybrids, so you can't really reuse the seeds to begin with.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    If it is that hard, why is any restriction needed?
    - gruez 6y ago
      Because the general principle of patents is that the owner is granted a monopoly on its use. You can add in exceptions, but it turns into a can of worms. eg. should "home" users be able to bypass patent laws in any product? what counts as "home" users? can other companies abuse this to bypass the patent system entirely? eg. you invent a widget, you patent it so competitors can't rip you off, but they sell widget kits: parts that allow a home user to assemble their own widget, exploiting the home use exemption. should that be allowed?
      - ddingus 6y ago
        Well, in a way, home users do violate patents now. It is not like anyone is looking all that hard. Seeing an EULA on food doesn't seem like it will end well. We are already struggling with who owns something. Software, in many cases results in what is essentially a rental without the advantages inherent in rentals, and lots of downsides. Right to repair is a matter of growing importance. Now food? Frankly, I would much prefer do it at home get a broad exemption for self sufficiency reasons, if nothing else. Arguably, nobody needs this food. I won't have anything to do with it. Fine. But the EULA will spread. Clearly someone has thought it time to maximize revenue in this way, and if they are successful, more will follow.
myself248 6y ago
Because of this, all the tomato varieties I'm growing next year are part of the Open Source Seeds Initiative, https://osseeds.org/ https://osseeds.org/ Specifically, a bunch of dwarf tomato varieties which are intended exactly for the small-pot growing conditions that happen to be most convenient for me: https://www.tomatofest.com/The_Dwarf_Tomato_Project_s/163.htm https://www.tomatofest.com/The_Dwarf_Tomato_Project_s/163.ht...
- sdoering 6y ago
  We are growing around 100 - 130 heirloom tomato varieties every year. Officially in Germany/Europe these are not valid varieties for consumption, but only "ornamental plants", as these are not registered varieties (and one is only allowed to distribute registered varieties for human consumption). As it is quite expensive to register a variety nearly no traditional farmer (or seed producer) does so, but sells under the label of "ornamental plant". We just grow, we don't sell. But we share with our neighbors and friends. Our small local community likes the fact that our small garden is full of edible and historic plants from tomatoes, eggplant, peppers, cucumber, maize or pumpkin to pear- and apple-trees producing way more than two people can consume. We just like to grow. We also have Open Source varieties, but also a lot of others tasting real good.
  - afandian 6y ago
    Reminds me of the halogen 'heating' lightbulbs I saw at a market in Hanover. In the context of brexit, I'm generally pro-EU. But nobody's perfect, and the regulations around registering plants really felt like a very nasty anti-democratic power-grab. As someone obviously well-versed in it, what is your attitude?
    - sdoering 6y ago
      Well. I have mixed feelings. Emotionally I feel the fact that (big) cooperations can own seed varieties (nearly like with patents) to be quite literally something that makes me boil. In general I do not like the fact, that it is easy for others to claim something that replicates itself as "their own"/"their property". On the other hand I saw a small tomato grower who developed and breed their own tomato varieties being ripped of by a bigger player, because they just couldn't afford to register a variety they painstakingly developed over years. The bigger player came, bought their seeds, grew the plants and two years later registered this variety as their own under a very, very similar name forgoing the necessity to develop the variety themselves. At least they did not push the other. smaller player out of the market - but they could have probably. I would love a system that enables some kind of (short- to mid-term) protection for the development effort of new varieties. But I also feel it is a right of the people to grow from their own seedlings. Something that even hybrid varieties do not offer. It is a difficult topic without quick and easy answers I fear. But for me - we buy heirloom seeds mostly locally/regionally, grow them, keep our own seeds every year and regrow from that. We also share with other hobbyists.
antman 6y ago
If it quacks like a duck it might as well not be. If plants are significantly altered so as to be patent able, I would prefer if their name and shape and color is altered also. There is a a consensus of what each plant should be like each Millennium including its sugar content and other nutritional properties. Additionally for the consumer, any producer side advantages are inconsequential and should not be cognitively burdened by them. As long as any actual innovative patents are not infringed by another corporate entity people are entitled to use, repair, brake anything they pay for as they see fit. Why must profit maximisation scheme forbid the natural right to plant your plant?
mint2 6y ago
How about neighboring farmers getting sued because windblown pollen from the patented crops someone else planted mixed the patented traits into their crops?

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

Not to mention plants are much harder to clone at scale, since the parent strains can be kept secret which effectively prevents seed propagation. It’s easy to clone one for personal use, but to scale it out for commercial sale is much, much harder (depending on the type of fruit).

saalweachter 6y ago
Propagating by cutting is the norm for many (most?) varieties of fruits.

Robotbeat 6y ago

I don't like plant patents like this as they are infringing on natural rights of people that have been around since the invention of agriculture. I grew potatoes in my garden after some store-bought ones developed eyes. It never crossed my mind to check if they were patented first, and it's absurd that I'd have to. The monopolization of everything is insane. We're binding ourselves up tighter and tighter in paper.

vikramkr 6y ago
Well, tubers can't be patented, so rest easy. As long as we have a patent system, patenting plants (especially with the heavy restrictions on plant patent eligibility) is a reasonable extension. Since the origin of agriculture, you've had the "right" to copy your neighbor's cool new invention to till the soil better without issues. As a society, we decided that giving inventors patent rights for a limited amount of time is going to encourage innovation and investment into new technology. The founders thought it was important enough that we embed it in our constitution, and since the founding of this country, patents have been a driving force in industry. Maybe there's a better way to support innovation and make investment into r&d happen. I personally don't find the alternative arrangements people have tried so far all that compelling- but im open to the idea that this isn't the best way to do things. For now though, I think I'm getting a good deal out of a patent system where the creator of the cotton candy grape is able to spend 12 years developing a cool new variety because they'll get a return on their investment over the 20 years following their product's launch. Patents paid for a lot of the products I use day to day, and unlike copyright, patents actually expire after a reasonable amount of time.
- ISL 6y ago
  What makes tubers special in this context?
  - vikramkr 6y ago
    IIRC it has something to do with tubers also being the part of the plant that is used as food[0]. Why is that considered an exception while something cinnamon, where the bark of the plant is eaten and also used in asexual propagation, is not? No clue. Really most of this boils down to "because the law says so" or "because the courts said the law says so." [0] https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/patents/types-of-patents/plant/ https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/patents/types-o...
    - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
      I'm going to guess it has something to do with the process before the product reaches you. If you buy a potato, it, on its own, will reproduce given the right circumstances. You can grow an apple seed, too, though that apple seed isn't likely to grow the same apple. You might get something out of an onion, though it is hard to grow a garden full of them without some work gathering seeds and so on. You an patent certain types of apples, though, and the trees (though not so much what comes from seeds): Eating apples are generally clones. Getting a nice, sweet apple is a lucky thing - Johnny appleseed was realistically spreading cider apples and/or what we would call a crabapple now. In addition, many purchased apple trees are grafted onto different roots to make them more robust. Similar thing with cinnamon. I've never seen fresh cinnamon bark for sale in a spice isle, just like I've never seen an apple branch for sale. Nor rootstock that wasn't an edible plant. Cinnamon bark is, at best, sold dried - and depending on the variety, it isn't even the entire bark, but just the inner layer. This isn't really what folks use to cultivate cinnamon, by the way [1], and i'm guessing that a lot of cinnamon patents are more geared towards extracting oils and drying/harvest methods. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinnamon#Cultivation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinnamon#Cultivation

montecarl 6y ago

It would seem more reasonable to limit commercial activities (i.e. resale) than the rights of individuals to grow food.

gruez 6y ago
>than the rights of individuals to grow food. Is it really a tragedy that your average home gardener can't grow cotton candy grapes after he bought some from the grocery store? It's already pretty hard to do that, given that many (most?) of the commercial varieties are hybrids, so you can't really reuse the seeds to begin with.
- ddingus 6y ago
  If it is that hard, why is any restriction needed?
  - gruez 6y ago
    Because the general principle of patents is that the owner is granted a monopoly on its use. You can add in exceptions, but it turns into a can of worms. eg. should "home" users be able to bypass patent laws in any product? what counts as "home" users? can other companies abuse this to bypass the patent system entirely? eg. you invent a widget, you patent it so competitors can't rip you off, but they sell widget kits: parts that allow a home user to assemble their own widget, exploiting the home use exemption. should that be allowed?
    - ddingus 6y ago
      Well, in a way, home users do violate patents now. It is not like anyone is looking all that hard. Seeing an EULA on food doesn't seem like it will end well. We are already struggling with who owns something. Software, in many cases results in what is essentially a rental without the advantages inherent in rentals, and lots of downsides. Right to repair is a matter of growing importance. Now food? Frankly, I would much prefer do it at home get a broad exemption for self sufficiency reasons, if nothing else. Arguably, nobody needs this food. I won't have anything to do with it. Fine. But the EULA will spread. Clearly someone has thought it time to maximize revenue in this way, and if they are successful, more will follow.

myself248 6y ago

Because of this, all the tomato varieties I'm growing next year are part of the Open Source Seeds Initiative, https://osseeds.org/ https://osseeds.org/ Specifically, a bunch of dwarf tomato varieties which are intended exactly for the small-pot growing conditions that happen to be most convenient for me: https://www.tomatofest.com/The_Dwarf_Tomato_Project_s/163.htm https://www.tomatofest.com/The_Dwarf_Tomato_Project_s/163.ht...

sdoering 6y ago
We are growing around 100 - 130 heirloom tomato varieties every year. Officially in Germany/Europe these are not valid varieties for consumption, but only "ornamental plants", as these are not registered varieties (and one is only allowed to distribute registered varieties for human consumption). As it is quite expensive to register a variety nearly no traditional farmer (or seed producer) does so, but sells under the label of "ornamental plant". We just grow, we don't sell. But we share with our neighbors and friends. Our small local community likes the fact that our small garden is full of edible and historic plants from tomatoes, eggplant, peppers, cucumber, maize or pumpkin to pear- and apple-trees producing way more than two people can consume. We just like to grow. We also have Open Source varieties, but also a lot of others tasting real good.
- afandian 6y ago
  Reminds me of the halogen 'heating' lightbulbs I saw at a market in Hanover. In the context of brexit, I'm generally pro-EU. But nobody's perfect, and the regulations around registering plants really felt like a very nasty anti-democratic power-grab. As someone obviously well-versed in it, what is your attitude?
  - sdoering 6y ago
    Well. I have mixed feelings. Emotionally I feel the fact that (big) cooperations can own seed varieties (nearly like with patents) to be quite literally something that makes me boil. In general I do not like the fact, that it is easy for others to claim something that replicates itself as "their own"/"their property". On the other hand I saw a small tomato grower who developed and breed their own tomato varieties being ripped of by a bigger player, because they just couldn't afford to register a variety they painstakingly developed over years. The bigger player came, bought their seeds, grew the plants and two years later registered this variety as their own under a very, very similar name forgoing the necessity to develop the variety themselves. At least they did not push the other. smaller player out of the market - but they could have probably. I would love a system that enables some kind of (short- to mid-term) protection for the development effort of new varieties. But I also feel it is a right of the people to grow from their own seedlings. Something that even hybrid varieties do not offer. It is a difficult topic without quick and easy answers I fear. But for me - we buy heirloom seeds mostly locally/regionally, grow them, keep our own seeds every year and regrow from that. We also share with other hobbyists.

antman 6y ago

If it quacks like a duck it might as well not be. If plants are significantly altered so as to be patent able, I would prefer if their name and shape and color is altered also. There is a a consensus of what each plant should be like each Millennium including its sugar content and other nutritional properties. Additionally for the consumer, any producer side advantages are inconsequential and should not be cognitively burdened by them. As long as any actual innovative patents are not infringed by another corporate entity people are entitled to use, repair, brake anything they pay for as they see fit. Why must profit maximisation scheme forbid the natural right to plant your plant?

mint2 6y ago

How about neighboring farmers getting sued because windblown pollen from the patented crops someone else planted mixed the patented traits into their crops?