Propagation Prohibited - ?

[Detlor Poultry]

First, the good news - I got my mail order from Stokes in today! 7 varieties of Squash, and a pellet greenhouse full of pellets, and a Gel-2-Root pack (that's so neat!).
Now, the confusing part - 2 of the varieties have written on them ' U.S. protected variety - unauthorized multiplication prohibited'. Also, last year, I bought several plants from nurseries that said 'Propagation Prohibited' on the tag...
My 'policy' is that you shouldn't copyright something you didn't make...

Does this mean it's illegal for me to save seeds from these varieties?

Thanks

 

[catjac1975]

First, the good news - I got my mail order from Stokes in today! 7 varieties of Squash, and a pellet greenhouse full of pellets, and a Gel-2-Root pack (that's so neat!).
Now, the confusing part - 2 of the varieties have written on them ' U.S. protected variety - unauthorized multiplication prohibited'. Also, last year, I bought several plants from nurseries that said 'Propagation Prohibited' on the tag...
My 'policy' is that you shouldn't copyright something you didn't make...

Does this mean it's illegal for me to save seeds from these varieties?

Thanks

Only if you sell them.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Some plants are patented. This gives a bit of a description of that. That gives the creators a chance to make some money off their creation.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/plant/

I'm not sure how legal it is for you to save the seeds for your own use. Seedcorn probably knows that real well, but I kind of think it might be illegal. I doubt they'll check up on you if you keep it to yourself. I know you cannot use them for commercial benefit. If you get caught trying to make money off of them, it gets serious.

The patent expires in 20 years. I've gotten fruit trees with that tag.

 

[Detlor Poultry]

What if you know that they are going to cross with other varieties (i.e. I have 7 varieties of Pepo-type squash, which both of these varieties are from, and I had two types of petunias and Jacob's ladders last year, which most definately crossed) Is it still illegal?

 

[The Mama Chicken]

It is illegal. They can sue you if you save seed. They probably won't, but they could. I make sure I always buy non-patented, non-GMO seeds. I refuse to support big agra-buisness and companies that believe they can patent life.

 

[vfem]

I think we did have this conversation before, rose propagation to be specific. A lot of varieties are creations of someone else and you can't save seed for sale, and you can't try to 'recreate' them either. The patient protects the cross they used as well.

It's similar to medicines and otherwise. It protects the company and the product from people 'testing' it and trying to recreate it. Though usually they do test and recreate it, then hold on to the results and not sell it until the patient expires. Then it becomes a generic.

Did you know there is no patient on FOOD! NONE! No recipe is protected by law and companies are fighting to change that because you can patient plants but not food is a huge issue to corporate food companies. Kellogg is the biggest lobbier to change that law because it costs them 100's of millions of dollars a year when generics of their cereals show up on shelves.

I think Patient laws need to be reworked some, but all in all their there to protect the creator of the plant, and it gives them rights to sue you to make sure every time you want their product you have to rebuy it and they profit each time.

 

[1iora]

I haven't taken patent law yet (next semester!), but here's some advice based on my basic understanding of the matter:

When you buy plants normally, part of the expectation is that you can recreate/propagate/breed them as you see fit. When they add that tag you then know you're just buying one plant, not something you can grow more plants from. It's like buying a neutered dog.

But here's the thing. Plants make seeds and offshoots. You have no control over that and you can't be expected to stop them from doing it. The creators were capable of making the plant non-propagatable (like mules!) but they chose not to, assumably because it's very costly to make each plant in the variety individually rather than using the seeds of an existing plant - something an individual grower would be willing to do, but that goes against the nature of companies. They made the conscious choice to save money in the creation process rather than having the chance to sell more plants. Their patent protects them from willful propogation. But if your plant happens to go to see or create offshoots or interbreed with some other plant, who are they planning on suing? The bees? Your fantastic soil?

Any plants created in this way therefore belong to you (you own the plant, cared for the plant, the plant reproduced - you own the reproduction) and can be used by you without legal ramifications.

So, obviously don't sell them. And if you want to replant them for your own use (not selling the fruits, not selling the seeds - giving away of fruits is probably ok) no one is going to come after you. The reason behind the patent is so they can sue you if you create your own variety using theirs as a base and then sell them for a profit. No one is going to come after you if you grow them for your own use - really they can't come after you if you sell the fruit at a farmer's market either - because how do they know you definitively did not save seeds from your original purchase?

If you're really paranoid then just leave one fruit of each plant in the garden, let them self-propagate, spread them out when they sprout. But they definitely will not sue you if you save seed and replant for your own personal use. The cost of litigation is not worth the value they would get back from suing you. Patent is seriously just a deterrent. A stay off the grass sign.

 

[galanie]

I haven't taken patent law yet (next semester!), but here's some advice based on my basic understanding of the matter:

When you buy plants normally, part of the expectation is that you can recreate/propagate/breed them as you see fit. When they add that tag you then know you're just buying one plant, not something you can grow more plants from. It's like buying a neutered dog.

But here's the thing. Plants make seeds and offshoots. You have no control over that and you can't be expected to stop them from doing it. The creators were capable of making the plant non-propagatable (like mules!) but they chose not to, assumably because it's very costly to make each plant in the variety individually rather than using the seeds of an existing plant - something an individual grower would be willing to do, but that goes against the nature of companies. They made the conscious choice to save money in the creation process rather than having the chance to sell more plants. Their patent protects them from willful propogation. But if your plant happens to go to see or create offshoots or interbreed with some other plant, who are they planning on suing? The bees? Your fantastic soil?

Any plants created in this way therefore belong to you (you own the plant, cared for the plant, the plant reproduced - you own the reproduction) and can be used by you without legal ramifications.

So, obviously don't sell them. And if you want to replant them for your own use (not selling the fruits, not selling the seeds - giving away of fruits is probably ok) no one is going to come after you. The reason behind the patent is so they can sue you if you create your own variety using theirs as a base and then sell them for a profit. No one is going to come after you if you grow them for your own use - really they can't come after you if you sell the fruit at a farmer's market either - because how do they know you definitively did not save seeds from your original purchase?

If you're really paranoid then just leave one fruit of each plant in the garden, let them self-propagate, spread them out when they sprout. But they definitely will not sue you if you save seed and replant for your own personal use. The cost of litigation is not worth the value they would get back from suing you. Patent is seriously just a deterrent. A stay off the grass sign.

All of the above is true unless it's "roundup ready" crops and the patent holder is Monsanto. In that case they will sue, and win. Even if you didn't want their stupid pollen on your land in the first place.

 

[Smiles Jr.]

Here's a thought from rural Indiana . . . catch me if you can!

 

[vfem]

Here's a thought from rural Indiana . . . catch me if you can!

LMAO!