[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [nafex] Patent Rights/Royalties- 3 questions

In response to Joe Hecksel's comments:

Joe discusses the case of Roundup Ready soybeans and other genetically
modified seed crops. However, the mechanisms by which seed propagated crops
are protected is different from that used for asexually propagated crops,
such as apples, pears, and other tree fruits. The basic legislation which
allows patent or other types of legal protection was passed decades ago, and
was not a specific response to GM plants.  Plant patent legislation, the
type of protection that applies to asexually propagated crops, has been in
existence since at least the 1930's.  Plant Variety Protection is a similar
program that applies to seed propagated crops, and is, likewise, decades
old.  The thing that has changed, I believe, is the extension of utility
patents to genetically modified organisms.  Genetically modified seed crops
would be protected by utility patents and PVP, but not plant patents.

Richard Bell    

> ----------
> From: 	jhecksel@voyager.net[SMTP:jhecksel@voyager.net]
> Reply To: 	nafex@egroups.com
> Sent: 	Friday, January 05, 2001 10:44 PM
> To: 	nafex@egroups.com
> Subject: 	Re: [nafex] Patent Rights/Royalties- 3 questions
> "Bell, Richard" wrote:
> > 
> > This is a response to an old posting.  I hope you can pick up the
> thread.
> > 
> > In response to Dale Burkholder's message:
> > 
> > > Jim wrote:
> > > In any case, in the licenses being granted on many recently patented
> > > varieties, a clause is included to the effect that seedlings and
> sports do
> > > belong to the patent holder.
> > >
> > I would be interested in knowing examples of varieties which are in this
> > restricted category.
> > I believe US law allows use of patented material in breeding, and does
> not
> > restrict ownership of mutants to the developer of the original clone.
> > Canadian Planter Breeder's Rights does not prohibit use of their
> germplasm
> > in breeding.  Use of ENZA varieties (from New Zealand) for breeding may
> be
> > prohibited without some licensing and royalty arrangment.  UPOV
> > (International Union for Plant Variety Protection), of which the US,
> Canada,
> > and most Western European countries are members, states that use of
> > protected asexually propagated varieties for breeding is allowed.
> Sports
> > and genetically transformed clones of protected varieties cannot be
> > independently patented or used commercially without the permission of
> the
> > owner of the original patent, if that patent is still valid.  Use for
> > research is not prohibited.
> > 
> > Dale wrote:
> > > My question:
> > > Does this only apply to the F1 seedlings, and later generations are
> > > exempt?
> > > If I use these patented cultivars early in a breeding program (my
> latest
> > > get-rich-quick scheme <g>) crossed later with unpatented stuff, am I
> safe?
> > >
> I believe the origin of this legislation was the desire to protect the
> investment made in *G*enetically *M*odifying certain species.  For
> example, Montsanto has a tremendous investment in moving "Roundup Ready"
> genes from whatever weed it was found in, into soybeans.  These beans
> are patented and propagation is prohibited....but that has not stopped
> some farmers from saving seed from their crop and using it.
> Montsanto's big fear is that Fly By Night seed company will simply cross
> the GM seed with an inhouse selection, spray the field with Roundup and
> sell the seed as their own.  Same GM genes at almost no investment.  
> So, the big seed companies who made the GM plunge need some kind of
> legislation to protect their investment, otherwise they will innovate
> (invest) themselves right out of business.
> -- 
>                                                      -Joe Hecksel
>                                                       Eaton Rapids,
> Michigan
> Comfort the afflicted.
> Afflict the comfortable.