I would appreciate a reply to the following question. A patent on a rose will not expire for around 17 years. What is the basic rule for using patented roses in your hybridizing program? I want to abide by all legal rules and regulations.
Thank you and have a great Holiday.
M.Clausen.
You can use any patented rose pollen/seed in the USA without a second thought!
Thanks Jadea for the reply. That answers my question.
MIF
Only GM roses use will be restricted in hybridizing. Actually there is none in the trade.
All progenies are the GM patenter property…forever…
GM roses are?
Genetically Modified roses?
GM = genetically modified, yes. Not General Motors.
Ah, Im used to plants like that being called GMO’s
I understand the term GM as I am employed by a major seed corn company. Thank You.
Mif Clausen.
GMO is generic for Genetically Manipulated Organism.
There are GM corn, GM rice, GM soja etc…
Ah, another corn breeder turned rose hybridizer!! Liz
In regards to GM roses: “All progenies are the GM patenter property…forever”.
When and if GM roses become available, who’s going to tell that to the bee’s.
That is the huge ethical concern, John.
Does anyone know the full legal implications of this? I can see how the person producing a GM plant should have some rights protected, but not exclusive rights. Forever?
For example, let’s say that a true blue rose is produced GM, but that it doesn’t have a very good plant, or that the blue color is not that refined. Now, let’s say someone else breeds with that line to produce a really superb blue rose that blooms lots, is fragrant and completely disease resistant… I can’t believe that the GM person for the blue gene gets exclusive rights to that new rose. Sure they should get a piece of the royalties, but not exclusive rights - just my opinion, and wondering what a good legal opinion would be…
Jim Sproul
This matter has been in the courts a lot because Monsanto has been active in filing suits to protect its GM varieties of corn and such. The article linked below will give you a taste of what has been going on–and if you search for Monsanto + law suits + crops you will find a lot of stuff. You may be sure that the legal status of GM crops will continue to evolve.
Peter
Link: thebrowser.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/07/25/patent-office-deals-a-blow-to-monsanto/
So as I understand this, a grain-farmer who has the misfortune of having another famer plant a GMgrain in the vicinity has worthless seed due to the risk of cross-pollination? Planting his own seed could result in a patent infringement and lawsuits from the likes of Monsanto???
I remember there was concern about GM genes getting loose into the ecosystem, but this creates a legal pandora’s box as well!
Anyway, we aren’t that far from having that happen to us. Just google “Florigene Suntori” to learn about the GMO, the blue rose. And then worry about all OP’s in the vicinity, I suppose…
Meh, I got really angry when I read about all this last time, and argued with someone here. So, I’ll opt out for the sake of diplomacy, lol.
I wonder if you could counter-sue because someones GM pollen has polluted your seed crops. Keep your pollen off my property.
I read some where that an organic farmer countered sued when he got sued because of accidental cross pollunation. He sued on the basis that his OP variety was ruined. The original lawsuit filled was against him. I am not certain but I think he lost the case.
Three years or so I had a class where I wrote paper after paper on this subject. I can see both sides of the issue but I am a little sick of this subject.
For my two cents. I think companies should be protected with their creations (if they where created in a lab or if the genes came from a totally different species). But I think there needs to be a time limit on the use of the patent. Companies also should not be so quick to sue due to accidental cross pollination. Nature does not know the difference.
It is an ordinary patent. Unlike the usual plant patents that set up breeders rights about a new var and is time restricted. Patented GM are like other patents. As long as a plant involve a GM part the owner is rightfull to claim a paiment or to prohibit sales. You see the problem…
Just as the common non plant patenter GM makers are complete owners of any plant that involve the manipulated part purposedly or not bred from the original manipulated one.
Implication of this is that any plant can turn objective property of one or several Genetical Manipulators when one or more decisive enough manipulation is/are made.
It is not that easy but to exemplify this one can imagine all tetraploid Daylilies being the complete and definitive property of the first patenter.
Along this idea there are many wild plants whose traditional medicinal use is patented by opportunists. Third world countries spend lot of money and tens of years trying to contradict these patents. Quite expensive, very time consuming and not allways successfull. A consequence is that the original countries consider native plants are national property.
Not so out of topic when one know i.e. that China is tempted to claim property for all Rosa chinensis derived plants…
Conclusion: in my opinion plant genes being “nature made” should not be claimed and fully patentable. Or limits to the patent are a necessity. Either a partial ownership or a time limit.