Firstly I should explain the PBR / PP thing... It's a copyright that a grower can apply for, to stop others producing for profit, a cultivar that the grower has produce themself. (A few of you may have seen myself and Ron B going through the grammar involved when using the names in a previous thread) The reason I started with explaination is because it's not a well known fact. Here in Australia they are PBR (Plant Breeder's Rights) from what I can gather from Ron's advice is that they are labelled as PP (Plant Patent) in the U.S. I believe the copyrighting was put in place to keep the plants true to form and not alter the gene base through excessive cultivation. I can say it is not being very well controlled. Whereas I would blatantly refuse to do so, the owners of the business always have the final say and if no-one else will do it...... Nurseries cannot (well aren't supposed to) reproduce the plant unless they have applied to do so, yet the customer who buys the plant can take as many cuttings as they like and pass them on to whomever they like so long as no money passes through hands. So what's stopping that from damaging the genetic make up eventually producing variances? What if a plant were to naturally set seed or produce a variance such as variegation does this mean I am not allowed to look into developing those parts further because I am using a piece of a copyrighted plant? If it were me I'd be happy just to be able to say I developed that plant and encourage the distribution thereof. Where does all the money made go, back into producing more plants? And there is a lot more extra money made from these plants than a standard form. They cost more for the retailer and hence more for the customer who often doesn't care about whether there is a PBR/PP on the plant or not. The looks of disbelief when I explain "It's copyrighted therefore it costs 2 to 3 times more than the standard form". Try selling a rose for $50 because of PBR/PP when there's enough varieties bare rooted at $7 maybe the huge profit makes up for lack of sales? I do know that putting a PBR/PP on a plant is far from cheap (10's of thousands of dollars) but on a whole is keeping a plant constant and reducing variances actually holding back further development, okay some may be negative, but it may also produce better disease resistance or the like. I am interested in what other's think and what they have found possibly good or likewise bad because of the way new plants are now being released.
PBR and PP are not exactly equivalent. Commercial interests put trademarks etc. on plants to make more money off of them.
Okay so is PP like selling a plant and giving an attractive name to make people want it more, that makes them totally different. PBR (is supposed to) stop basically like I said unwanted reproduction of a plant. It even goes as far with some places not even letting you pot on stock, no reason accepted. They are producing pots with plants names printed on the pot now, I guess to help try regulate this. You can buy tube stock from some suppliers but can't pot them on. Some varieties have dearer tags involved to cover some costs that way giving allowances for potting. I feel the latter is probably more appropriate way of handling the matter. Although anyone can actually grow and sell plants here in Queensland they do require tagging. It is not the same for all of Australia where most states seem to be a little more strict. I have heard that you can avoid trouble by using the species name not giving the registered cultivar on a written tag, however it was probably a lame excuse more than actual fact. Does PP stop others producing the plant or just using the fancy name? I often see older varieties being jazzed up with flash tags and catchy names but in reality it's still the same plant just more commercially produced.
A patented plant is a patented invention. If you visit the USPTO web site you can find details there.
Caveat emptor. Make sure the "benefits" are shared equally between the buyer and the seller. In many cases today that is simply not the case. Bob
Cheers Ron will look it up. Bob I agree there's too much emphasis (esp here) on profit and a total disregard for the smaller business and the consumer alike. I've worked in or am very familiar with all the nurseries in this town and there is a big consensus that the smaller business is being left behind. I have seen it where a new release plant is advertised and available through the larger stores yet a nursery would have to wait for the second or even third release several months later when the market has been flooded already. Then they cannot compete for price as the big guys buy truckloads and the small ones get the most they can afford. Most small nurseries will propagate as much as possible to save buying in other nurseries stock but this cannot happen with the newer laws here. Garden Centres don't have the luxury of space though and they pay the extra and often that's why they are the most expensive places to go. I know a big wholesaler and he has a couple of PBRs and he doesn't feel it's worth the money. He was offered a deal from one of the bigger businesses and was going to be left making about 1/3 of his normal profit if he was to sell to them. Yes he'd sell more but a bigger workload for not really a big enough profit to warrant it. On a whole I think the industry could really take a good look at itself and ask where it's heading and if this all really for the good of plants and all involved or is it just a means to try control who makes the money?
Okay PP is very much the same as it is in place to stop others producing the same product. The Trademark name however is the fancy name given to the plant. If the plant has PP/Pbr alone or with Trademark it cannot be produced without the owners consent. If it only has a Trademark however then the fancy name has the protection but the plant can be reproduced... Plantus maximus Fancypants where Fancypants is Trademark name can be resold as Plantus maximus Hotpants. Plantus minimus Fancypants ('FNC456') where FNC456 is the Pbr/PP code, cannot be reproduced (without the patent owners consent) as the plant has a patent on it by way of the PP/Pbr name. That seems to be the way it goes, so it is pretty much the same.
