new burpee seedless tomato??

[Jim]

I understand parthenocarpic (sp) but even those develop seeds correct? what's up with that mater??

[Jim]

www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2000074468&IA=NL2000000380&DISPLAY=STATUS

[canadamike]

The frigin ''method'' to produce a seedless tomato has been copyrighted. I would vote for everybody to make sure we create some, just to piss them off,but what I like about a tomato is the seeds and the gel and their flavor.

Ha s anybody here think we should be the first to think to copyright the ways to do flavorless tomatoes, and of course tomatoes with the said traits,hell, there is a market for it by judging what is on the shelves these days....

[bunkie]

interesting, but i agree with you michel, i like the taste and flavor of the seed and gel. i don't see a color on the patent? perhaps we could patent a blue one... ;D

[paquebot]

Where did Burpee come into this? Link is to a hybrid developed in Spain.

Martin

[lavandulagirl]

I think Burpee is who markets it here in the States.

[Jim]

Burpee is advertising a seedless tomato. The link I posted I found with google.

[canadamike]

I think I will register the '' cholesterol free water set of words.

I am sure there is money to be made

[paquebot]

Parthenogenic tomatoes have been a goal of hybridizers for a long time. That's to benefit those who are unable to eat tomatoes due to the seeds. In 1991, I inadvertently grew such a plant. The previous year I had grown Rajce tyckove F1, a Czech field tomato. (I still have the packet and leftover seeds.) A number of volunteers came up in that area and I saved perhaps a half dozen of them for transplanting. All but one produced normal fruit somewhat close to the originals but nothing to brag about. The odd one had smaller and less fruit and were quite solid, but not a single seed in any of the fruit. At the time, parthenogenic was merely a word that popped up in a crossword puzzle now and then. I never knew that it was something that wasn't supposed to be common among tomato plants.

Martin

[atimberline]

Jan 11, 2009 19:41:10 GMT -5 Jim said:

www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2000074468&IA=NL2000000380&DISPLAY=STATUS

This is nothing short of piracy!!!! ...or I should say the intent of piracy.

I developed and noted such back in the 1990's ...they should have a copy of the germplasm i accessed for such work at the Tomato Resource Center... Yes, I had exactly such, (and other like) inventions for the totally seedless tomatoes they describe. and plenty, maybe hundreds of lines to prove it could work . ....beyond this work I was going one step past these bastards to make even haploid production difficult , by eliminating the pollen production altogether...I was so angry with all those people who grow mountains of seed and can't share a penny with the originators... it was just something I did to prove this was not something they could take seed, or pollen from and run with. The problem I encountered with the total lack of pollen was that generally they were the source of the hormones that initiated (by backfow) the developement of seedless tomatoes... so much more to be said... the bastards have no such right to a patent.
Tim Peters
formerly of, PSR, Peters Seed and Research

[atimberline]

...that patent is nothing less than a statement of demand that we pay these bastards for the priviledge of thinking and doing, which previously we have been doing for free, or freely. ...Damn slave hunting system.

[Alan]

I've been looking into some copyright laws lately and thinking about how we as a group or as individuals could place the equivelent of a limited "creative commons" licenes on plant varieties. Essentially what this would do is allow home gardeners and small seed companies to grow, trade, sell and distribute seeds freely but keep the hands of big ag and multi-nationals off of these public domain seeds. Has anyone else looked into this? Is this something we should consider?

Tim, would you be interested in an interview in the near future?

[plantsnobin]

Alan, I don't know if this is exactly what you mean, but in JLHudson's catalog, under the 'Important terms of Business', David has the following statement : 'In order to protect the Public Domain status of our seeds, as of June 1st, 2000, all seeds are supplied solely under the following conditions: We expressly prohibit the use of any seeds or plants supplied by us, or their progeny, in any form of genetic engineering, breeding, or research, which will result in any form of life patent, variety protection, breeder's rights or any form of intellectual property applied to living things which would compromise the Public Domain status of the seeds, plants, their progeny and any genetic material therein. We expressly prohibit the transfer to any third party of any seeds, plants, their progeny or any portion of their genetic material without these prohibitions in place."

[pugs]

If it is a US patent and not a PVP, then there is a way to request a review of the patent. Usually you have to provide published information that was before the first application of a patent. There are other reasons a patent can be reviewed, I just can't think of them right now.

I don't know the details, as IANAL and I don't play one on TV.

I wonder how JLHudson gets around the first sale doctrine. They might have a difficult time making that stick.

Pugs

[Alan]

What I was speaking of is somewhat similar to the J.L. Hudson thing, but I don't think the J.L. Hudson clause is actually legally binding, more of a plea not to do so with those varieties.

What I am looking into is very close to what some bands such as Nine Inch Nails are using to licennes their downloadable music on the internet, such that folks can download the music and even remix or otherwise manipulate it without infringing on copy right, I'm not sure if there is an equivalent to this in the plant breeding world, but it may be something to look into.