please stop posting to uk.rec.birdwatching.
[uk.rec.birdwatching removed from crossposts]
Ben David wrote:
>> Wayne Parrott wrote:
>> > <deletia>
> > > I was pointing out that, although I may have
> > > potentially infringed on the original owner's (still debatable) IP rights, I
> > > wasn't getting something for nothing, since I had invested money, care and labour
> > > in growing the tomatoes.
> > >
> > IP protects new genetic combinations (traditional or otherwise) that are put together
> > intentionally by a breeder and would not exist otherwise. The protection accorded
> > such varieties is analogous to copyrights. As an example, think video tapes. You can
> > go to the rental store and rent a video tape of the latest movie, but you cannot make
> > copies of the video and sell them.. I hope you would never argue that since you "had
> > invested money, care and labour in" copying the videotapes, that you had a right to
> > sell them.
> (1) I buy oil paints from Winsor Newton, but they have no rights to the picture I create.
> Growing plants is not as passive as watching a video (in fact, there's not much that's as
> passive as watching a video...)
> (2) There is well established legal precedent for the idea that certain things are the
> common property of the community - even the community of humankind. The extension of legal
> structures created to protect the two most "artificial" human endeavors (arti and
> technology) to the most "natural" of processes (plant growth) is problematic.
> (3) Most seed that breeds true is really a population of slightly varying genetic makeup.
> So: I plant the seed company's seed, then select the strains that did best in my
> microclimate. Voila - I am a plant breeder. Let them pay ME.
Alastair Rae, London, UK.
Remove NOSPAM from my email address to reply.
My opinions are not necessarily those of my employers.