|
|
Post by canadamike on Jan 26, 2009 18:41:46 GMT -5
Why not just get friggin patents then give the right away to whom we choose, meaning everybody except a few bastards...
I am not sure it would work in accordance with our principles, but darn, they are steeling things away from pour people....
|
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Jan 26, 2009 19:28:14 GMT -5
Mostly because I don't condone patenting and it would be one hell of a legal mumbojumbo to go through to create a clause such as that, some folks might see that patent and think that it applies to everyone. The path I'm looking at would explicity only prohibit manipulation by non traditional breeding systems and corporations, or the patenting of these varieties or their genes. Either way, I'm not sure there is a way it can be done.
What I can say is that orginizations such as Kokopeli and Seed Savers should definitely look into this, they are the ones that have the spotlight and means to bring attention to this and to do something about it, if I had the power and the money I would have already have done so. Hopefully we can do something in the near future however.
|
|
|
|
Post by grungy on Jan 27, 2009 2:15:18 GMT -5
I second the motion.
|
|
peapod
gardener
Zone 4, acidic soil, and sandy loam that I have worked on for 4 years. Fixing the bad stuff.
Posts: 175
|
Post by peapod on Feb 7, 2009 17:19:24 GMT -5
Barring the copyrights of a tomato... Who would want a seedless tomato to begin with? Where are the seed saving capabilities in that?
Because of the seedless variety on the cover of Burpee dont think I will be ordering from them ever again. Shameless if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
Post by atimberline on Feb 7, 2009 22:17:58 GMT -5
...the main value I saw in the seedless tomatoes was the possibility of eliminating fruit setting/pollenation problems... like in a greenhouse, high heat, extreme cool, high humidity conditions... that sort of thing
|
|
|
|
Post by atimberline on Feb 7, 2009 23:01:28 GMT -5
...If any of you want an early indeterminate seedless with high yields of sweet good tasting tomatoes, and excellent fruit set under a wide range of conditions Just send me $4.00 and i will send it to you. ....It doesn't have the functional sterility genetics, that I am supposing Burpees Hy. has so it can and does make some seedy fruit, esp. in the later fruit sets.
...If you wanted to get seed on a burpee seedless, to get a new seedless line, you could pollenate with my Red Rover, or Irish Setter tomato varieties ( I can still remember the scoffing I got at OSU from Dr Baggett and crew about naming tomatoes after dogs... I had a good laugh about it along with them ! ...it was part of my humor about their rapid fruit setting abilities, and an exploration into the psycological impact of a name - as reflected in sales... quite revealing) ... these tomato lines have seedless traits from a couple of sources but lack the functional sterility factor that would render all fruits seedless. They tend to set fruit exceptionally well.
Tim Peters
|
|
|
|
Post by atimberline on Feb 7, 2009 23:28:29 GMT -5
..another side to this seedless thing that I was exploring was the element of apomixis that occurred in some of my breeding populations ...there were instant true breeding lines in some of the populations at far greater than average levels, and irrespective of otherwise normal tendencies in crosses with them... I miss those unusual lines that I chanced on in my selection/breeding work... how many years of work would something like that save a breeder! ....I don't know how many of you can appreciate what I am talking about...
|
|
|
|
Post by nightmist on Feb 16, 2009 13:45:12 GMT -5
Barring the copyrights of a tomato... Who would want a seedless tomato to begin with? Where are the seed saving capabilities in that? Because of the seedless variety on the cover of Burpee don't think I will be ordering from them ever again. Shameless if you ask me. Since the Balls sold out to Seminis I have had to give Burpee up anyway. Their seed can no longer be trusted. So far as plant patents, sometimes they have been a good and reasonable thing. For example a friend of my mother-in-law developed one of the first black iris and patented it, Sable Knight I believe. He was then able to make a little money off it by leasing the rights out to a company that was more able to propagate and sell it. He didn't get rich off it, but the money paid his property taxes for a few years. That I think was the way plant patents were supposed to be used. The way companies do now is just madness. |
|
