|
|
Post by paquebot on Nov 10, 2010 0:55:30 GMT -5
The entire fact of the matter is that there are some who do not like the PVPs and only see our system as being totally bad. We, the US, are not the only country in the world who grow and eat vegetables and have plant breeders at every stage from one-man gardens to big corporations. There are 62 other individual nations which have PVP regulations as does the European Community. The biggest portion of the Western Hemisphere is covered plus all of Europe, either as individual countries or through the EC. You want to develop a new variety in the Kyrgyz Republic? You're efforts may be rewarded. Bottom line is that being against Plant Variety Protection is like spitting overboard in an effort to raise the lake level. It ain't going to do a freakin' bit of good!
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Nov 10, 2010 5:43:54 GMT -5
Kent Whealey's latest speech does not mention fear of any company other than "corporate breeders" obtaining SSE seeds and infusing them with GMO. Obtaining them is possible already through both SSE public catalog as well as their wholesale lists and the Yearbook. Since there are no corporate breeders currently known to be working on GMO vegetables, it's more of a fear of what is known to be possible rather than what is imminent. Man has the knowledge to clone all forms of life including himself but that doesn't mean that it's happening. Martin To be clear Martin, I'm not against PVP, I'm only against the way it currently exists. Like has already been said, anyone can get a PVP but only big companies can truly benefit because they control the systems of distribution, and this is not right. Burbank had a great vision with PVP, but the meaning has been lost. Kent's referring to the SSE and GMOs seems to be related to the following. All existing PVP regulation is based on the idea that new varieties are created from a genetic crossing that reshuffles all of the genetics of the variety. Therefore if you create a new variety, there will be a significant genetic distinction from anything else that exists. If only a few genes are different, it's probably more of an issue of an adapted landrace or maybe a sport. The problem is all PVP laws everywhere are different and many countries don't have reciprocal agreements. In Europe for example they work in a totally different way as in the US, and the systems are incompatible with one another. If you want protection in both places, you need to register this separately, which is another reason why it doesn't really work well for independent plant breeders. In many places, just inserting a gene or two with genetic engineering is not enough to justify protection because the change is not great enough. I think even in the US, this has the potential for a court challenge. When you think about it too, it might seem a little unfair that someone might spend years developing an OP variety, only for someone to spend a few hours in a lab inserting some new genes and then patenting it as a new variety. You might think this is okay, because it's a new and distinct variety, but some others might not agree with you. The issue with the SSE depositing the seeds at Svalbard is that the Depositors Agreement appears to grant the LEGAL right to use the SSE deposits for genetic engineering and then patenting. Since this is covered by a written contract, it's more likely to be accepted by more countries. It has nothing to do with physical access to the varieties, which like we all know can be requested via the Yearbook. Again, you might think it's okay for companies like Monsanto to have protection for their GM varieties based on only changing a small number of genes, and a lot of people would agree with you. If however I was in your situation, and developed Paquebot Roma, and over the course of an afternoon Monsanto turned it into Roundup Ready Paquebot Roma and made millions of dollars with it and didn't give me a cent, I would be pretty unhappy. If it turned out this was made legally possible because I offered it to others via the SSE Yearbook, I would be even more unhappy. The fact of the matter is the SSE apparently making the decision to give permission for genetic engineering and patenting on their entire seed collection is a contentious issue, not least of which is if they should even have the right to do this in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Nov 10, 2010 9:41:57 GMT -5
The entire fact of the matter is that there are some who do not like the PVPs and only see our system as being totally bad. We, the US, are not the only country in the world who grow and eat vegetables and have plant breeders at every stage from one-man gardens to big corporations. There are 62 other individual nations which have PVP regulations as does the European Community. The biggest portion of the Western Hemisphere is covered plus all of Europe, either as individual countries or through the EC. You want to develop a new variety in the Kyrgyz Republic? You're efforts may be rewarded. Bottom line is that being against Plant Variety Protection is like spitting overboard in an effort to raise the lake level. It ain't going to do a freakin' bit of good! Martin Your right, some of us do have a major problem with the ownership of life. Period. 10,000 years we have all openly shared the genetic resources of this world without such cavalier "ownership" of living beings and those who were really creative (Burbank, Gregory, Livingston, and others) were capable of creating a living for themselves via their creativity and reputation without ever "owning" any of those creations and yet now if you want to be a "plant breeder" you've got to own life? Seems like a cop out for laziness and an inability to properly promote valuable plant breeding work. Sorry but we will never see eye to eye on this charade of a system. |
|
|
|
Post by mnjrutherford on Nov 10, 2010 10:33:41 GMT -5
The "business" of "owning" stuff is a very .... hmmm... need a word here... fragile? misconcieved? Regardless, ownership, is at best, all a matter of perception. I "percieve" that I own 2 acres of land in North Carolina. The bank, county, and neighbors concur with my perception. The perception is based on fiscal transaction which is ongoing.
IF, the excrement should be flung into the air circulation system tomorrow, and our monetary system disappear, what then? Who will own things then? Consider how wars have historically created "reassignment" of property.
Typically, the less visible folks were the ones who were left alone. Cooperators were rewarded with the property of the non-cooperators. But then, this is land and not plant material. Which begs the question, how valuable and necessary is a patent on plant material? Who is going to actually pay for it? Who is going to honor and respect it? Well, those who "believe" and "have faith" in it.
And those who don't believe? What of them? Well, if they are decent upstanding folk, they just don't buy. If they are indecent and downsitting, they steal.
Next question, who are the good and who are the bad? Who is tracking it all? Who cares enough to take responsibility? What motivation is there?
Speaking for myself, if I had the money, I would exclusively purchase seed mainly from folks here. I don't have money, so I try to give equal value in some fashion that is typically considered acceptable. Sometimes the process works great, sometimes it doesn't, either way, the day ends and a new one begins.
I am grateful that there are some of you who are really knowledgeable about these issues. I am even more grateful that you are willing to take the time to scribe your thoughts and feeling regarding the issues. I appreciate what you are doing and why you are doing it.
Thank You!
|
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on Nov 10, 2010 13:16:05 GMT -5
I usually have nothing to say about politics, and I'm not going to say anything about politics in this post either, even though the thread has been mostly about politics...
I can't envision how PVP could have anything to do with me or with my gardening.... So I can't imagine why I would care one way or the other about PVP. That is a political issue that had nothing to do with my world view, or with breeding, or growing, or marketing seeds.
Using violence (government) to prevent other people from growing my seeds is not something that I would ever be interested in. If I ever succeed in developing "That Most Astonishingly Tasting Sugary Enhanced Sweet Corn" I would want everyone in the world to try it and wouldn't care who was growing it or marketing it, even if they didn't give me any credit or pay.
This year marks a sort of milestone for me... As of this year I have been doing my own thing for longer than my career with "The Corporation". If I have learned anything during that time it is that my success or failure in business has little to do with what "The Corporation" is doing or selling. I have my groupies that will plant any seed that I breed due only to my reputation (and that of my family). I have people every year that seek me out to buy vegetables because they saw or tasted something that I bred and grew for their friend. Due to the magic of the Internet I can reach out to any seed company and ask them to carry my seed, or I can market them myself.
So that PVP stuff is merely politics, and there is no place in my life or garden for politics.
Regards,
Joseph
|
|
|
|
Post by mnjrutherford on Nov 10, 2010 13:46:30 GMT -5
Well said sir, well said!
|
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Nov 10, 2010 22:29:43 GMT -5
The cold hard fact is that if there is no reward, there is no incentive. Action comes from the result of need. If there is a need to grow enough food to feed twice as many, there must be an action to double it. If that action does not fulfill the need, then there is a need for a different action. We are where we are now because of incentives to improve everything about our lives and everything has come with a reward to somebody. When I moved into this house in 1963, my neighbors were Zach and Zelda Edison. It was because of many of their relatives' patents that I'm able to sit here tonight and post this reply.
In our present society, there are not the means to accomplish what must be done without reward. Yes, one could obtain a government grant to undertake the project since someone has to pay the normal day-to-day bills. If a project cost a hundred dollars or a million dollars, someone has to pay for it in the end. When the human race developed a system of individual property ownership, everything in the world had a price established.
And, finally, why worry about PVP varieties? There is nothing which says that you must grow them. I have grown PVP varieties and all were good ones. With fruits and vegetables, there are many, many thousands of non-PVP varieties available. Grow them instead. If your gripe is that you are not allowed to propagate them for selling the seeds, we already have ample seed companies to supply our gardening needs. Best advice I can give is to either pay the royalty fee or sell something else.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on Nov 10, 2010 23:10:17 GMT -5
The cold hard fact is that if there is no reward, there is no incentive. There are plenty of rewards that cannot be deposited into a bank, or even grasped by human hands. For the most part my plant breeding activities are done for reciprocity: For the honor that is afforded to me by my community for developing a new variety. There is no law anywhere that can create respect where it is not merited. A secondary incentive in my plant breeding is curiosity. It's so danged fascinating. |
|
|
|
Post by castanea on Nov 10, 2010 23:50:37 GMT -5
The cold hard fact is that if there is no reward, there is no incentive. Martin Apparently to you, the only reward is measured in dollars, but there are many people who, thankfully, do not share your priorities. Reward comes in many forms. I have done more chestnut breeding than anyone I know of, and produced some superb chestnuts, yet I have received no financial reward of any kind. I give scion wood away to anyone who asks. I give nuts away. I will never patent anything. According to you, what I have done with chestnuts cannot happen because I receive no financial reward. In a word, you are wrong. You also ignore the fact that many folks made a living from breeding plants long before any type of PVP existed. What a shame that you are unfamiliar with Luther Burbank, or Felix Gillet, or Albert Etter. A great deal of superb plant breeding was done before any type of PVP existed, much of it for the love of doing it. Finally you ignore the fact that most money that is made in plant breeding is made as a result of marketing skills and not as a result of brilliant breeding. The Honey Crisp apple is a marketing victory, not a breeding victory. Its flavor is markedly inferior to hundreds of other cultivars. Nor is the patent needed to make money. Anyone who breeds a tree fruit automatically has a multiple year head start on anyone else who wants to propagate that same fruit, thus allowing them the opportunity to make some money, if that is their goal. If you don't understand why this is a fact, you may wish to give it further thought. On the other hand, numerous plant patents exist that will bring their owners no money. And even today, a great deal of money is made on varieties that are not patented. How can that be? Perhaps you should spend some time thinking about that also. No one owns the genetics to a plant, and as long as legalized criminals think they do, there will be other people who will work to insure the free use of those genetics. |
|
|
|
Post by grunt on Nov 10, 2010 23:54:59 GMT -5
Admit it Joseph, you do what you do because you can't not do it anymore. You have found a way to provide for your family and do the things you love to do.
I opted out of the rat race and became a lightkeeper, because I knew I would be too busy enjoying life to ever be a successful enough businessman to make any money. When they started paying me to keep on breathing, I started putting in days almost twice as long as the ones I got paid for, and wishing the light would last longer. I still haven't truly bred anything, but there's still some time left on the clock for me to try that too.
I think most of the folks on this forum fit into a like category, or they would be doing something else. We all put far more of ourselves into what we do than we will ever receive compensation for. Sometimes we just lose sight of that fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Nov 11, 2010 0:48:36 GMT -5
The cold hard fact is that if there is no reward, there is no incentive. Martin Apparently to you, the only reward is measured in dollars, but there are many people who, thankfully, do not share your priorities. Reward comes in many forms. I have done more chestnut breeding than anyone I know of, and produced some superb chestnuts, yet I have received no financial reward of any kind. I give scion wood away to anyone who asks. I give nuts away. I will never patent anything. According to you, what I have done with chestnuts cannot happen because I receive no financial reward. In a word, you are wrong. You also ignore the fact that many folks made a living from breeding plants long before any type of PVP existed. What a shame that you are unfamiliar with Luther Burbank, or Felix Gillet, or Albert Etter. A great deal of superb plant breeding was done before any type of PVP existed, much of it for the love of doing it. Finally you ignore the fact that most money that is made in plant breeding is made as a result of marketing skills and not as a result of brilliant breeding. The Honey Crisp apple is a marketing victory, not a breeding victory. Its flavor is markedly inferior to hundreds of other cultivars. Nor is the patent needed to make money. Anyone who breeds a tree fruit automatically has a multiple year head start on anyone else who wants to propagate that same fruit, thus allowing them the opportunity to make some money, if that is their goal. If you don't understand why this is a fact, you may wish to give it further thought. On the other hand, numerous plant patents exist that will bring their owners no money. And even today, a great deal of money is made on varieties that are not patented. How can that be? Perhaps you should spend some time thinking about that also. No one owns the genetics to a plant, and as long as legalized criminals think they do, there will be other people who will work to insure the free use of those genetics. I could care less about what you do with chestnuts any more than expecting you to care what I may do with tomatoes. We are each the minimum personnel required to develop a new variety. Apparently you have read little of what has been presented. I am very familiar with the works of Luther Burbank and it was because of his work that the PVP act was passed. He was all for it. I have many times referred to the fact that he was granted a number of PVPs after he was dead. Since you work with trees, you should also be aware of the number of apple trees which must be grown from seed before one is suitable for commercial production. I used to repeat the figure of 10,000 until someone in the industry said that it was closer to 12,000. If you happen to not like Honeycrisp, that's an individual preference and your problem. And, the fact still remains that there is no incentive to do anything without some reward. What that reward is is up to the individual. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Nov 11, 2010 1:17:59 GMT -5
And further on the original topic, I've now read the latest from Kent Whealey for the third or fourth time. His early letters were mainly involved in gaining access to certain files in SSE but no reason given. I could understand him wanting access to something that he felt was his property. Later letters tried to convince me that SSE was in the hands of morons and the biggest was Amy Goldman. Perhaps some of that was correct in that there were some changes made via resignations for unstated reasons. Still, there was no major concern in SSE. Now, the latest has really stirred up a major hornet's nest. The message I get from Kent Whealey's speech is that "I brought you into this world and I'll take you out of this world." It has switched from saving SSE to destroying SSE. I never met Kent but met his son a number of times. (Aaron Whealey was the manager of the Madison, WI SSE store and my first question on Garden Web in 2002 was to ask why I should join when their store was only 12 miles away.) Well, I do have a dog in this fight and all I can say is that Kent went way over the line this time. His great speeches in the 1970s and 1980s were to an uniformed public and whatever he said was taken as gospel. In one early one, it was he who first used the term "heirloom" in reference to OP varieties. Now he's preaching to the choir and it's more of a rant than a speech. The crowd is no longer comprised of people who have little knowledge of the topic. They aren't hayseed rubes whose only contact with the outside world is a penny postal card or a partyline telephone. Anything discussed can now be confirmed or denied with just a few strokes on a keyboard. My life spans that period so I know what has transpired. My decision is that I will remain an SSE member and support what their original goals were. I do not have to support any or all of those who are currently in charge but from what has become of Kent Whealey leads me to believe that what we currently have is possibly better than what might have been. Read "Our Side of the Story" on www.seedsavers.org and some may share my opinion that Kent Whealey went too far this time. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by mnjrutherford on Nov 11, 2010 7:22:54 GMT -5
1. The cold hard fact is that if there is no reward, there is no incentive. 2. When the human race developed a system of individual property ownership, everything in the world had a price established. 3. Best advice I can give is to either pay the royalty fee or sell something else. 1. Very true, BUT, most people in this age ASSUME that cash money is the ONLY reward of any value. 2. Value can only be determined between the buyer and the seller. 3. I would have to agree with this advice. |
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Nov 11, 2010 7:31:18 GMT -5
Wow, since I'm in a different time zone as the rest of you, I go to bed and wake up and so much has been said.
As far as what everyone said about owning life and patents, it's pretty much the same with me. Except for what I'm growing from others, I don't have a lot of interesting breeding going on in my garden, but if I did I would never patent or get PVP for it. But this is just me, and I don't have to make a living doing this. I fully support any system that means people like the breeders associated with this forum can get paid for what they do.
In terms of what Joseph said:
In terms of me and my gardening, it's the same. I don't care what I grow is covered by PVP, and I will also save and redistribute seeds of any and all plants I have. Here in Europe it's illegal to distribute ANY seeds you save yourself, so there's no way to win anyway. US PVP laws also don't apply here. I would encourage others to do the same, just grow and breed with whatever you want, wherever you are. Let the big companies follow the PVP rules if they want.
The only thing is the day will come where food is managed like things you can download from the Internet, such as music, video and software. There will come a time where governments try to use the police and courts to keep us from doing what we want, and it's important to fight against these rules before they get put in place. This is why it's important to get involved in things like the SSE making deposits at Svalbard.
What Martin said:
I don't think I've ever suggested current members of the SSE should give up their membership. I think this is a personal decision each one of them can make without my help. The only thing I've done is to discourage potential new members from joining, because I don't think there's a lot for them to gain anymore. I think there are too many better alternatives, and the situation with the SSE will only get worse in the future.
Martin, if you stay a member, not only do you have my full support but my thanks as well. It's great to have someone like you working from within, especially since you don't seem to be fond of the current leadership.
I've been debating if I should say more about the SSE 'Our Side of the Story' on my blog. Probably I'll wait for Kent's next letter instead, and let him do it. I don't see very much interesting there. I will say a few quick words here.
Amy Goldman's reply was as close to saying nothing as you can get, and there's not much to say about it.
Cary Fowler's reply was funny! First there was the 'official' statement from Crop Diversity Trust, then Fowler referred to to that as proof there is no problem. Fowler is the Executive Director of the Crop Diversity Trust, and so is responsible for the official statement, meaning he's using himself for support on his own position and just talking in circles.
Glen Drowns reply was the best written and most interesting in my opinion, but emphasized Kent's inability to manage people and take care of seeds and little else. I think it's very clear he cares very deeply about the SSE collection, and didn't say much bad about Kent except that he didn't support his latest actions. Glen didn't offer a lot of support for the current SSE board either.
Most of the others were people I had never heard of and read like Amy Goldman sent them an email and told them what to say. I didn't find them very interesting or compelling. Did you notice all of the letters seem to follow the same basic theme, and not much creative or unique was said?
Apart from these letters, I've seen very few positive statements about the SSE on the Internet, in discussion forums or blogs. I have read a number of pretty harsh and unfriendly statements about the SSE however. I think the people on the Internet are more representative of the SSE membership, and if they care about their members they will care about this too.
I don't know Kent personally, but of everything I know about Kent or have heard from trustworthy sources, I can say the following is probably true. He has a very strange way of communicating, using rambling letters with a small font and no margins in the age of the Internet. He's probably not a very good people or project manager. His love of biodiversity and saving old varieties is probably stronger than his gardening skills. He's not the best when it comes to handling press or publicity. He's made some bad choices in the past when it comes to choosing board members and accepting donations from rich people, and has just had some bad luck over the years.
Except for it being a recurring theme in 'Our Side of the Story', I don't see a lot of evidence that Kent 'went too far this time'. Didn't the SSE say this about his earlier letters too? I haven't particularly read anything credible that supports the idea 'Kent has changed' either, but then again I have never known him so I can't really say.
I think in general Kent said the right things in his latest letter. I think Kent is just trying to do the best he can under the circumstances, and without a doubt all the dirty laundry is being aired by both sides. It's natural the SSE will say anything and everything they can to discredit him, as will Kent about them. I think however Kent went to a lot of trouble to support his arguments, and the SSE has done very little to provide evidence and support of their position.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnjrutherford on Nov 11, 2010 7:36:27 GMT -5
There are plenty of rewards that cannot be deposited into a bank, or even grasped by human hands. For the most part my plant breeding activities are done for reciprocity: For the honor that is afforded to me by my community for developing a new variety. There is no law anywhere that can create respect where it is not merited. A secondary incentive in my plant breeding is curiosity. It's so danged fascinating. You are an extreme minority. The minority that lives well and happily. |
|
