TC Disappointed or not

[Bill Meyer]

Hi Molly,

Yes, the OS tag does help somewhat, but once a plant is TCed the monetary value drops quickly. While the main issue for high-end collectors is scarcity, monetary value is tied in. They like to be one of a very few to have something. That adds a level of excitement to their collecting.

Tissue culture really upset the applecart on hosta prices. It changed things dramatically from what used to be very similar to daylily prices. A hosta can go overnight (fall to spring) from being worth $200 to being worth $15. Even the OS would probably command no more than $40 then.

The money end is crucial for fundraising auctions. If no hostas are worth more than $40 then many hosta organizations would soon face serious financial troubles. There's no reason we can't have a tier of expensive plants that keep their value for a long time, other than profiteering by some who care more about money than keeping the societies alive. I don't really refer to 'Dorothy Benedict' here in that it has been around for so long that TC really doesn't change things that much. It's old news for the high-end crowd.

Hi Spider,

I would say that at this time 80-90% of the TC from the major labs is every bit as good as the original and probably not genetically different in any way. Some batches still show uneven growth, but stability and trueness are very good nowadays. Even TC from other labs is often very good, but there are batches that are poor for various reasons.

You could say that OS is more vigorous in that you typically get one or more mature divisions vs. a small semi-mature single from TC. The OS will not surprisingly make a larger mature plant a year or two quicker. Technically though the TC is often just as vigorous and just as good but smaller when you receive it.

..........Bill Meyer

[Wild Dog]

Spider wrote

I guess my question is ... is the OS healthier than the TC. Is the DNA evenly distributed in the plant enough to have the small amounts they use to propagate the TC in a truly healthy form, or is an entire section (eye) more evenly developed to give the plant health?

TC is a micro division method, where you get little sports or divisions, which are usually very, very similar to the original. It has all the genes and should be as healthy and vigorous as the original.

[Spider]

OK, I understand better now. Thank you.

[Jamie]

As you say, putting high-value collector plants into TC hurts the auctions.

Who decides which hosta are "high-value collector plants"?

I've paid high dollars but I always assumed the price I paid was for my pleasure and since I now owned the hosta I could do with it as I pleased. Of course, I never bought any plants with stipulations or was gifted any plants with stipulations, if I did then I would honor those stipulations.

Please don't take my questions personally, I'm trying to address practical world issues.

Hi Butch,
We the collectors are who determine what's a high dollar plant. Since our appeals are different then what I would consider a high value plant could be worth pennies to you and vice versa. What Bill did with the FL Auction was awesome to quite a few of us high dollar collectors.. It let us know if what the future plan were for the hosta so the bidder could bid appropriate. If the AHS would adopt this system then I'd be willing to drop more money at the auctions, but until then I'll stay clear and not take my chances of dropping a few hundred on a plant only to see out in tc within a few years. I'm rather new to hostas really "started late 2002" and have spent well over $10.000 in hostas and my rare collection could be seen as worthless if all these rare plants I have hit the tc market. I also have gift plants from friends that I don't even put on my list for fears from a thief like you mentioned earlier. When I go to drop a few hundred on a plant I always ask if there's any plans for the plant to be mass produced in the market so I know if it's really worth the $200.00 for OS compared to just waiting and getting the same thing for $30.00 in 2 years.

To All,
I'd also like to publicly apologize for bringing plant names into the picture and fear I've made a few not like me anymore because I did and that's not what I wanted to do. The 2 i mentioned were just the first to pop into my head. I'll still stick to my theory though that if the plant has future plans of mass production then I'll stay clear of it. Thanks all for the great discussion where were all just not bickering at each other. It makes from great topics to take the time and read the whole thing.

[Wild Dog]

Bill help me understand the economics?

The money end is crucial for fundraising auctions. If no hostas are worth more than $40 then many hosta organizations would soon face serious financial troubles. There's no reason we can't have a tier of expensive plants that keep their value for a long time, other than profiteering by some who care more about money than keeping the societies alive.

How does the price affect the societies finances if 5 plants are auctioned for $40 or one for $200?

This does not address those who want to be in an exclusive group owning expensive plants. Those who want to be in this group could form buying coops with limited membership and contract with the hybridizer or anyone who finds that special sport. This high-end group could agree to buy a limited production or divisions and own the entire output of that seedling or sport. They could control the membership and keep it as exclusive as they want and be one of only 10 who own a plant they paid $1000 for or they could increase the membership to 20 with each dropping $500. They could agree by contract how they would handle these high-end plants or as you say upper tier plants. The contract would only require legal expense one time and the group could split the legal cost. There could be agreement on violations of this agreement with monetary consequences, which could be bonded so the group would get the $10,000 then the bonding company would seek the money from the offender.

A contract could be let to a bronze plaque maker to cast a limited set of markers, the plants would be upper-tier and the plant markers would be exclusive also.

[Bill Meyer]

Hi Butch,

Why do you think donations to fundraising auctions will increase fivefold if plants have less value? Not that many people donate in the first place. Do you think a lot more people would if the plants were worth less? Or perhaps that the few who donate now would donate five times as many plants. Would you be among the donors then?

Yes collectors could go to such measures and likely would if forced into it. With all the hostas being created and found each year there doesn't seem any reason to though. Maybe its human nature to want what others want so that everyone wants the same plant and doesn't care about all the others, but I'm saying there are enough plants for everybody as long as we don't fight over the same ones.

And there is still no excuse for taking advantage of the lack of freely available protection that introducers are stuck with. We are a society, albeit a loose one, and certain behaviors are noted and remembered. The introducers have rights if not legal protection like the writers and photographers. Those who prey on others because they can are not welcome in most societies. If you are arguing the collectors should go to such extremes to prevent the rare plants from being TCed without the introducer's knowledge or permission, I ask how much of the burden should go on the honest people to protect themselves from those that would prey on them? Given that the collectors do choose plants that the introducers have agreed not to put into TC, that is.

...........Bill Meyer

[Wild Dog]

Ho, Bill

Or perhaps that the few who donate now would donate five times as many plants. Would you be among the donors then?

I always donated plants for every event and I tried to select plants someone would want. I personally felt that the club was for the members and they should pay the freight for whatever they wanted to do but I supported and worked on every event. We spent a great deal of time on fundraisers when I felt we should spend that time studying the horticulture of hosta.

but I'm saying there are enough plants for everybody as long as we don't fight over the same ones

Let the market do the fighting, pay what it takes to get the plant you want.

Those who prey on others because they can are not welcome in most societies.

I think I understand your point, a set of ethics that the AHS should adopt. And, you are offering ethics around what is and isn’t TC’ed.

If you are arguing the collectors should go to such extremes to prevent the rare plants from being Tc’ed

I’m not arguing that collectors should go to extremes at all and wouldn’t consider membership in some exclusive group; I’m more the people’s hosta grower inclusive rather than exclusive. You indicated an interest in “upper tier” plants and Josh only wanted to “drop” $500 on plants that would not be TC’ed so I organized a method of seeing that there is an “upper tier” for those who can afford them and this upper tier could be protected from a loss of exclusivity.

[sugar]

Hi Butch,
While this is legally correct if it is not patented or otherwise legally protected I think we all know that it is nowhere near being moral or ethical. If you bought a photo for the plant tag, would you assume you had all rights to do what you want with that photo? You'd be wrong and subject to legal troubles if you did. Unfortunately the system doesn't offer something like a copyright for hostas and introducers are left without affordable (free actually) protection like photographers, musicians, and even Hallson posters are under copyright laws. You legally can do whatever with my plant, but you can't copy this text or I can sue you. It's hardly fair or ethical, but it is legal.



Patenting in the US is beyond the price most introducers are willing to pay ($6,000 or so if you pay for all the work). Given such a high cost I think very few will ever patent their plants unless a big nursery like Walters is going to do big numbers. By contrast, anything that falls under copyright laws is automatically protected from abuse by those who think they own all rights to something if they can get their hands on it, but hostas aren't on that list.

I'm sorry, but this does offend me. There is nothing immoral or unethical in applying the law, certainly not in this case, the law is the law...
There is a simply reason why intellectual property rights (patents) and copyrights don't give the same protection : property rights can potentially damage the economy by not allowing everyone to share the technology(or a plant in this case).
That's the same reason why a patent will not protect someone getting a patent and not making it available to the market in some way : economics.

I'm a MSc in ElectroMechanical Engineering and in Industrial Engineering, and I know these are the rules of the game in my work, people cultivating plants will have to follow the same rules of the game.

Is it fair? I don't know, the intellectual protection on plants comes rather from crop food and ornamental plants are less economical vital... But like I said, it's the law

On top of that, intellectual protection is international law, so just changing laws in the USA will not help.

Because introducers have no automatic legal protections they should stipulate what can be done with the plant. Most don't think to do that since we are used to living with so much protection in other parts of life. Some feel it is impolite, or even going too far. Unscrupulous individuals have taken advantage of this loophole in intellectual property laws to buy a plant then put it into TC and start selling it openly, even though they did not discuss their plans with the introducer before buying it or starting to sell it.

Well, if the originator didn't stipulate anything at all, there's no taking advantage of it at all. If the originator really doesn't want the plant to be distributed, he should just keep it in his garden

Let's face it, the only reason to do something like that is greed and there is no justification for it. It's legal theft of the rights the introducer has, which are poorly protected by the government.

No the only reason not to distribute the plant is snobbery, and I don't see a reason for that either : just bragging rights "I have a plant that you don't", which I find at least doubtfull...
And the orginator does not have legal right without patents... so the person buying the plant can do what he wants to.

The money end is crucial for fundraising auctions. If no hostas are worth more than $40 then many hosta organizations would soon face serious financial troubles. There's no reason we can't have a tier of expensive plants that keep their value for a long time, other than profiteering by some who care more about money than keeping the societies alive.

There's no reason why there won't be some plants that stay exclusive and expensive, but it will be commercialy less attrractive plants, eg not one of these new Blue Mouse Ears sports that will be marketed over the next few years, but some lovelly streakers or very hard to grow plants
There's also no reason why Hosta Societies couldn't get funds from other sources

This does not address those who want to be in an exclusive group owning expensive plants. Those who want to be in this group could form buying coops with limited membership and contract with the hybridizer or anyone who finds that special sport. This high-end group could agree to buy a limited production or divisions and own the entire output of that seedling or sport. They could control the membership and keep it as exclusive as they want and be one of only 10 who own a plant they paid $1000 for or they could increase the membership to 20 with each dropping $500. They could agree by contract how they would handle these high-end plants or as you say upper tier plants. The contract would only require legal expense one time and the group could split the legal cost. There could be agreement on violations of this agreement with monetary consequences, which could be bonded so the group would get the $10,000 then the bonding company would seek the money from the offender.

Wel, they could also build a wall around their gardens.

I know this will probably offend some people out there, but I just can't understand all this "I want a plant and no-one else can own it", for me it's just the opposite of everything a Hosta Society or this forum should stand for: sharing our passion about these plants, and sharing the plants

sugar

[Jamie]

Sugar,
You have it all wrong. It's not about being the only one that has the plant. It's about the lost investment for us. If I pay 300.00 for a plant then why shouldn't you have to? So i guess your saying that if we were to buy the same car from the same car dealer and you pay 10.000 and I only have to pay 5.000, it's fair?

I hate to inform you this but your trying to isolate a rather large group that consist of more then you really think. I'm betting over half the hosta collectors have a plant in there garden that's rare to the next person. You really need to stop trying to isolate rare hosta collectors from other hosta collectors. As I've stated I really don't care if that plant is in 1000 gardens, but I do care that I have to pay more then the other 999 did.

[Wild Dog]

Jamie said
As I've stated I really don't care if that plant is in 1000 gardens, but I do care that I have to pay more then the other 999 did.

Jamie, why did you have to pay more than the other 999?

[Wild Dog]

sugar wrote
for me it's just the opposite of everything a Hosta Society or this forum should stand for: sharing our passion about these plants, and sharing the plants

Sug, you are offering your should, and Bill has his should's then comes Jamie with his should's.

An open discussion can flesh out the reasons for all these shoulds possibly leading to a better understanding of what is and if we personally want to alter our reaction to the forces at play in hosta horticulture.

The reason I started this thread was to try to explain the TC process, as I understand it so we personally can decide how we feel about TC not as a group because as you see there are different shoulds in the group.

The reason I use hosta in my landscape is to decorate my life. I have a feeling that I don't own hosta; rather I'm just a caretaker while I'm passing through at 67 passing through feels more real every day. As a proper caretaker I must understand the horticulture of genus hosta.

[Bill Meyer]

Hi Sugar,

I see you're in Belgium. I understand the European Breeder's Rights plan is somewhat easier and less expensive for hybridizers than the US Plant Patent, and is a comparitively good solution. As you say, the US system is mainly for food plants, and is a very poor match for the needs of ornamentals hybridizers.

In what you say about potential economic damage you can see that no such reasoning applies to smalltime hosta hybridizing. Certainly the world economy suffers no harm if a hosta hybridizer doesn't release his/her prized hosta creations. The difference between a better-producing corn hybrid and a fancier new hosta couldn't be more dramatic. For the same law to cover both, it would obviously have to be heavily weighted towards the food plants and it is. So heavily in fact as to make it virtually useless to the small ornamentals hybridizer. In actual application of US Plant Patents to hostas it can be seen that they have no idea what they are doing allowing patents for sports like 'Liberty'. Just how is that unique and different from the other 'Sagae' sports?

Frankly, I find your arguments specious in that the laws are such an obvious mismatch for the ornamentals hybridizer that you can't find a way to explain what their purpose is intended to be. I maintain that a new hosta hybrid is no more necessary to the wellbeing of humanity than a photo or piece of music, and is in no way comparable to a better food plant or cotton plant.

Just because some poor and inefficient laws that serve the food and otherwise economically important (cloth, wood, etc.) ends of the plant kingdom well are stretched to poorly cover ornamentals, you argue that because "it's the law" there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of the situation for personal financial advantage if you can. You even imply that the introducer is being piggish if they don't let you have one to propagate and sell as you wish so that you can claim Robin Hood status by making it available more cheaply to the economically disadvantaged. At a small personal profit, of course.

I am curious why it is snobbery for a hybridizer to sell their own plants which they developed themselves how and when and to whom they wish. Perhaps you assume that hosta hybridizers build vast personal wealth by selling at high prices to the monied elite. The truth is that there is very little money to be had selling hostas, and no one has ever gotten rich doing it. Yes, the laws allow you to profit at their expense if you can get away with it, and perhaps in "business ethics" you feel that means you should. That hardly makes it moral or ethical, though.

We aren't talking about not distributing a plant, we are talking about who distributes it and how. As we agree that there are enough plants for all segments of the market, why the irritation that collectors like to have a few that are more scarce? As I've said, those are very important to the financial wellbeing of the societies additionally. Why should societies have to scramble for other sources of income (can you suggest any?) just so a few "enterprising" profiteers can legally sell what they do not own the rights to? Just because the laws do not fairly protect those rights does not mean that they belong to anyone who can get their hands on them.

You are essentially arguing that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but this is hardly the French Revolution. There is no "need" for plants we don't have, only "want". That wanting does not justify taking from others even if it is legal to do it.

Your closing statement is simply a twisted argument to justify your point that if the law allows you to do it there is nothing wrong with it. The societies and forums are about sharing our love of the plants but that does not extend to abuse of other members of that group. If I post a photo here, I'm sharing it, but no one has the right to grab it and use it to sell plants without asking. There is sharing and there is abuse. The only difference is that the laws cover one but not the other.

As you realize the views you put forth are offensive to others, I wonder if you know why. They are offensive because you essentially put your rights over those of others without any justification other than that the law allows you to in this instance. Laws that you admit are poorly designed to protect their rights. It is simply a "me first" argument in sheep's clothing.

I argue that it is not OK to abuse a few people to be able to sell hostas for a profit to some other people. The introducers and high-end collectors are also part of the society, as much a part as those who want to have their plants. They should be treated with the same respect as everyone else.

...........Bill Meyer

[woodthrush]

Has anyone actually checked with a lawyer to see if hybridizers could have a Terms of Sale type agreement signed by potential buyers? Much like we agree to abide by the rules of a forum site, could a Terms of Sale stipulate that a specific plant cannot be re-sold or propagated for profit and the consequences? If you actually had a signed agreement between the grower and the purchaser, maybe it would deter someone.
Pam

[Jamie]

Jamie said
As I've stated I really don't care if that plant is in 1000 gardens, but I do care that I have to pay more then the other 999 did.

Jamie, why did you have to pay more than the other 999?

Hi Butch,
Cause it's hasn't been tced and isn't widely available. And again this is where tissue culture has dropped the value of certain plants, and it isn't just hostas. I'm not saying all plants shouldn't be tced, but there is some that shouldn't to leave the collectors value on the plant.

The reason I started this thread was to try to explain the TC process, as I understand it so we personally can decide how we feel about TC not as a group because as you see there are different shoulds in the group.

Butch,
You lost me on this comment. Hosta collectors are a group as is daylily collectors , etc. Why start a discussion if you think my shoulds and other's shouldn't be added? This is your subject line TC Disappointed or not.. Now to me that looks like a question to the Hosta Group.. I stated that I don't think tc is always the best for all hostas. Why is it when someone disagrees with you there opinion doesn't matter?

The question is what should we expect, knowing what to expect then we are not regularly disappointed.

I'm sorry if you don't like my opinion about certain plants being tced. Next time you ask a question be a little more specific, please!

[eastwood2007]

Before I say anything, I just want to say I don't really have a "bent" toward either direction. I can see both sides. But couldn't there be some middle ground? And for those who pay $200 or more to have the first plant of its kind available...what about those that pay the price for the first new cellphone that comes out? Oh, I have to have that new Razor, Chocolate...now you can get them for alot less.

I remember the first portable calculator was $700 and now people give them away...What about the first fax machine, cell phone, personal computer, laptop, printer, digital camera, Xbox, DVD players, MP3s, etc., etc.

I, too, have paid high prices for the latest and greatest something I just had to have right now. But that was my choice. It is called supply and demand, I think.

Sure, TC has changed hosta gardening, but so has HVX and the EPA or whomever is responsible for taking nematode control off the market.

Just like it is a questionable practice for someone to sell TCs too young before they have a chance to be healthy (unhealthy goal for recognition or profit), I think it is equally questionable to have the "I have it and you don't" thinking (unhealthy goal for recognition or profit). I personally find both schools of thought to be a little distasteful... Sorry if I offend anyone.

I don't have a problem with someone keeping their intro to themselves. (Well, except for a few of those that I can't get my hands on! )

I like the thought that we all have and share hostas because they are beautiful and intriguing, and there is no end to the magnificance that can be produced. I, too, think that is what the Hosta Societies should be about...sharing.

[sugar]

I just finished writing a long answer, but IE decided to crash on it... , second attempt

I think you misunderstand my point...

Hi Sugar,

I see you're in Belgium. I understand the European Breeder's Rights plan is somewhat easier and less expensive for hybridizers than the US Plant Patent, and is a comparitively good solution. As you say, the US system is mainly for food plants, and is a very poor match for the needs of ornamentals hybridizers.

I don't think the European system is less expensive. I've invented a ingenious system to improve bags for photographers, but won't be doing something with it because getting intellectual protection is expensive and because I don't have the time for marketing it myself and I don't want someone else getting away with the idea

In what you say about potential economic damage you can see that no such reasoning applies to smalltime hosta hybridizing. Certainly the world economy suffers no harm if a hosta hybridizer doesn't release his/her prized hosta creations. The difference between a better-producing corn hybrid and a fancier new hosta couldn't be more dramatic. For the same law to cover both, it would obviously have to be heavily weighted towards the food plants and it is. So heavily in fact as to make it virtually useless to the small ornamentals hybridizer. In actual application of US Plant Patents to hostas it can be seen that they have no idea what they are doing allowing patents for sports like 'Liberty'. Just how is that unique and different from the other 'Sagae' sports?

I agreed in my first posts that the protection offered isn't really fair...

Just because some poor and inefficient laws that serve the food and otherwise economically important (cloth, wood, etc.) ends of the plant kingdom well are stretched to poorly cover ornamentals, you argue that because "it's the law" there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of the situation for personal financial advantage if you can. You even imply that the introducer is being piggish if they don't let you have one to propagate and sell as you wish so that you can claim Robin Hood status by making it available more cheaply to the economically disadvantaged. At a small personal profit, of course.

No I don't. I was speaking about the collector claiming exclusivity and the monopoly on a plant after paying a lot of money to get one of the first copies

I am curious why it is snobbery for a hybridizer to sell their own plants which they developed themselves how and when and to whom they wish. Perhaps you assume that hosta hybridizers build vast personal wealth by selling at high prices to the monied elite. The truth is that there is very little money to be had selling hostas, and no one has ever gotten rich doing it.

I know the breeder isn't making a lot of money, and I doubt he will by selling exclusive copies of the plant to collectors, with the market being flooded 2-3 years later.
Perhaps the breeder could use TC to get more out of it, by ordering a small batch of TC plants and selling them with a reasonable mark-up

And it's certainly not snobbery from a breeder to keep the plant exclusive, but a collector buying a plant does this partially to acquire the bragging rights that get along with it (even when most of the collectors don't brag with them)

Yes, the laws allow you to profit at their expense if you can get away with it, and perhaps in "business ethics" you feel that means you should. That hardly makes it moral or ethical, though.

We clearly have a different definition of 'unmoral' and 'unethical'. If the breeder doesn't claim the rights on the plant, he agrees in giving away the intellectual rights for the plant. Someone TC-ing such a plant afterwards is not doing anything immoral, unless the breeder specifically asked for not mass-producing the plant (and a given word becomes a contract)

For me it's much more immoral to give away or sell divisions of a PPAF plant, because this would be intentionnaly violating the intellectual rights the breeder claimed

A collector however can't claim exclusivity by paying high $ for a plant. If he wants that, he needs to demand such a protection from the guy (breeder) selling the plant, and he should not accuse the TC-lab starting to massproduce a plant they legally acquired from the same breeder or another collector. If there's someone immoral in this game, it's the collector or the breeder breaching an agreement they made earlier during the sales, and selling the plant to the TC lab

We aren't talking about not distributing a plant, we are talking about who distributes it and how. As we agree that there are enough plants for all segments of the market, why the irritation that collectors like to have a few that are more scarce?

I put this allready , of course there are different types of plants. But claiming exlusivity for a plant with a huge commercial potential without assuring the intellectual rights is naive (no offense intended). The breeder should better try to get the $ from this potential himself
And a collector buying such a plant should know that the plant will be mass produced rather sooner than later, so it's not very wise to pay a lot of money for it.
The more commercial potential in a new plant, the less a collector should be spending on it to acquire it...

[/quote]
Your closing statement is simply a twisted argument to justify your point that if the law allows you to do it there is nothing wrong with it. The societies and forums are about sharing our love of the plants but that does not extend to abuse of other members of that group. If I post a photo here, I'm sharing it, but no one has the right to grab it and use it to sell plants without asking. There is sharing and there is abuse. The only difference is that the laws cover one but not the other.

[/quote]
And that is quite some difference to me

As you realize the views you put forth are offensive to others, I wonder if you know why. They are offensive because you essentially put your rights over those of others without any justification other than that the law allows you to in this instance.
...........Bill Meyer

any justification other than that the law That last phrase is very offensive to me but explaining that would be a very long story.

I hope I made clear my point of view ad didn't offend anyone with it ....


sugar

[Wild Dog]

Hey Jamie, one comment. You seem to assign attitudes to me that I don’t think I have. These assigned attitudes are like testifying to facts not in evidence. If you take my questions as straight forward questions it will help you avoid assuming erroneously attitudes I don’t in fact have.

Hi Butch,
Cause it's hasn't been tced and isn't widely available. And again this is where tissue culture has dropped the value of certain plants, and it isn't just hostas. I'm not saying all plants shouldn't be tced, but there is some that shouldn't to leave the collectors value on the plant.

This is in response to “why did you pay more or why did you have to pay more”, I still don’t know why? Your response leads to another question I think I’ve already asked, who decides which ones should not be TC’ed? This is an example of a straight forward question, what authority decides what plants will or won’t be TC’ed?

This is your subject line TC Disappointed or not.. Now to me that looks like a question to the Hosta Group.. I stated that I don't think tc is always the best for all hostas. Why is it when someone disagrees with you their opinion doesn't matter?

My purpose was not to have an opinion about TC’ed plants only to describe in broad strokes how it worked so the reader could understand decide how they felt about what they got. I really don’t understand when you disagreed with me or about what you disagreed with me about.

I'm sorry if you don't like my opinion about certain plants being tced.

This is parallel to “do I still beat my wife”, you are sorry for an opinion that I do not have. I do not accept your apology because none is needed.

[adlesma]

Charla,
I was also going to post that same thing about technology. I am always one to want the latest and greatest right away, but I know I'm going to pay a price for that. When it's half the price the next year, I don't feel bad because I made that decision knowingly. I've also seen hostas that I would love to have, but they are too expensive for me - so I'll wait to see if they come down, because I can live without them. If they don't come down, then I'll make the leap if I want it bad enough. (I am learning to wait - I don't have an iPhone - yet... )

[Bill Meyer]

Hi Sugar,

And is your name really Sugar?

Let's let some of it go. The problem at the center of this is:

We clearly have a different definition of 'unmoral' and 'unethical'. If the breeder doesn't claim the rights on the plant, he agrees in giving away the intellectual rights for the plant. Someone TC-ing such a plant afterwards is not doing anything immoral, unless the breeder specifically asked for not mass-producing the plant (and a given word becomes a contract)

Yes we do. The difference between us is that in the absence of a specific agreement I don't just assume that I can do whatever is best for me to the detriment of the other party. If the breeder doesn't specify the terms, he/she does not "agree" to give away all rights to their own plants. They might not specify in every case for several reasons. They may not care, they may have forgotten, they may trust (however misplaced) that you would have the decency to ask if you intended to propagate it and thus impact their own sales. The latter might be called professional courtesy among sellers.

I think if you poll all the people who have introduced plants you'll find that the great majority, many perhaps through naivete or misplaced trust, do not feel in any way that they "agreed" to give away all rights. I'll bet many would have a difficult time understanding that they have no legal protection like others who create non-essential items do. To go a step further, having talked to many of them, I can tell you they have some fairly unkind things to say about people who do think they bought all rights for just the price of the plant. In short they do feel they have been treated badly when that happens, and they see it as more than just a lack of professional courtesy. They feel victimized. Why do they feel that way so often when they "agree" the buyer can do whatever they want by not specifically going into detail about what would be OK? My theory is that it's because they were victimized. Do you think they would sell you another plant if you did that?

You know and I know that if your intention is to keep your mouth shut and pay for a plant and run off to propagate and sell it, that you are trying to pull a fast one. You are trying to avoid a conversation about rights so you can avoid a discussion about splitting the profits. Claiming afterwards that it was "agreed" silently because "everybody knows" is just weak and dishonest.

I guess it's shades of gray (pretty dark gray really) to try to decide if is more unethical to violate a patent than it is to avoid a discussion about what rights the breeder is really selling so you can keep all the profits. The aim in both cases is the same - to get as much as you can for yourself at the expense of that breeder. The ethics and morality are pretty much the same in both cases. The intent is to cheat someone else.

The laws aren't perfect and because of this are perpetually in a state of change. Every society builds and refines its body of law to improve its effectiveness as certain individuals work to find loopholes to legally get away with things they shouldn't be able to get away with. Part of the reason laws exist is to prevent the victimization of some by others. Yes, there's a big difference in whether the laws allow you to do something to victimize another or not. A big legal difference, but legal is not the same as moral and ethical.

I expect in time someone will change the laws to better protect the ornamentals hybridizer. Maybe I will live to see it. Certainly the intent of the law is not to make it impractical for the small hybridizer to get the same sort of protection offered to many in other creative fields. The intent is to offer protection against people who would assume (however sincerely or insincerely) that someone gives up all rights by their own volition when they sell something. When the laws do change, the ethics and the morality do not. They come first and the laws are built upon them, not the other way around.

........Bill Meyer

[sugar]

Hi Sugar,

And is your name really Sugar?

No my real name is Tom Van Elst

sugar is a nick I acquired some years ago, I live in a city with a very big sugar producing company

I expect in time someone will change the laws to better protect the ornamentals hybridizer. Maybe I will live to see it. Certainly the intent of the law is not to make it impractical for the small hybridizer to get the same sort of protection offered to many in other creative fields. The intent is to offer protection against people who would assume (however sincerely or insincerely) that someone gives up all rights by their own volition when they sell something. When the laws do change, the ethics and the morality do not. They come first and the laws are built upon them, not the other way around.

........Bill Meyer

What amazes me is to see , for other plants, cultivators organize their patent protection (eg Roses) . It's weird that noone is claiming the same type of rights for hostas


sugar