Mericloning Neos/ Illegal or Culturally Prohibited

[Leafmite]

Ray, yes, you can do what you want with those chemicals. The problem would arise if you began to manufacture those chemicals...then you would be propagating them.

It can be so confusing....

I think they are going to have to make some firm laws about what living things can be patented and what cannot be and how these patents can be used. Imagine a human who has had a gene or set of genes altered so they do not suffer from the affects of terrible disease like Tay-sachs or Cystic fibrosis. What if they wish to have children to whom they will pass this trait. Much research went into that but should someone be prevented from having children or pay/ask permission from a corporation to have a child? This is sort of what is happening with plants and certain animals already. The day is coming....

[AnonYMouse]

Upcounsel's first two sentences are succinct, "A plant patent is for newly invented strains of asexually reproduced plants. To be patentable, the plant must have been asexually propagated." Further reading muddles the issue, like we have different definitions of "discovered", "newly found", "wild".

I'm missing something, a hybrid would have to be grown from seed but that would disqualify it from a patent. Does that mean the first generation cannot be patented? Because seed grown plants are genetically wildly varied?

According to the NIH: "On June 13, 2013, in the case of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that human genes cannot be patented in the U.S. because DNA is a "product of nature." The Court decided that because nothing new is created when discovering a gene, there is no intellectual property to protect, so patents cannot be granted. Prior to this ruling, more than 4,300 human genes were patented. The Supreme Court's decision invalidated those gene patents, making the genes accessible for research and for commercial genetic testing."

A naturally occurring species should be covered by this ruling. (What do I know, I'm not a lawyer. They kinda remind me of taxonomists. Did my best with citing but I'm not a lawyer!)

[Paul]

Interesting topic.

Based on this: "A plant patent is for newly invented strains of asexually reproduced plants. To be patentable, the plant must have been asexually propagated." it would seem that even the farmers discussed earlier should not have been sue-able -- especially those farmers in adjacent fields whose plants may have been inadvertently cross pollinated by the patent plants. The seeds would be the result of sexual reproduction not asexual.

As far as propagating patented plants by the homeowner .... there are a myriad of issues with trying to enforce such a law. One, as mentioned, is the back lash of "picking on the little guy" and the lawsuit costs inherent for the patent holder. Then there is the issue of expecting a homeowner to hold onto the receipts of any and every plant they purchase which has a patent. Furthermore, what happens when said homeowner's home is sold to a new person. Unless the previous owner thinks to give the new person the receipt, there is no proof that any patented plants on the property were not "illegally" obtained. Furthermore, let's say you have a patented hosta. It grows like gangbusters so you divide it to use part of it in another area of your yard. How can you prove that second clump was merely a division of the original and not "illegally" obtained?

Personally, I don't agree with the patenting of multicellular organisms. I have less issue with the patenting of things like bacteria.

[orchidsarefun]

Hmm....never thought of that " it was there when I bought the house" defence. Or what about " I bought it at an orchid show as a NoID. How was I supposed to know it was patented?" 🌝

[estación seca]

Mericloning sometimes produces mutated plants. Mericlones of mericlones and so forth are more likely to produce mutations.