Compensating OP tomato breeders

[goodwin]

Great discussion. I've argued for a while that we need something in place like the open source software community has. So I was encouraged to see what the Dwarf Project and others are doing with the Open Source Seed Initiative. Maybe nctomatoman can discuss that a bit because it has real potential.
Down the road, as it becomes easier and cheaper to obtain the genetic sequence of a particular tomato, we can eliminate some duplicate named varieties. We may also be able to eliminate the possibility that a commercial seed company will rip off our work or patent the variety.

Lee

.

[Cole_Robbie]

I think the way that intellectual property law fails to protect OP breeders is just ridiculous, considering IP law does protect:

• photographs
• drawings or paintings
• written descriptions

As "creative expressions" under copyright law, those protections are instant, universal, and have no requirement of quality or amount of work and time invested. So someone can steal years of breeding work and sell it as their own....but by golly they don't get to use your pictures! That would be unfair.

[bower]

Cole, have you read the OSSI pledge?
I don't have it in front of me, but I thought the wording was a bit ambiguous or difficult to understand without reading all the extra explanations, and there are questions as to whether it would be legally binding.
I think it works for the breeders who work professionally in the universitites, as a means of obtaining their employer's commitment not to sell the rights to the product in question to an exclusive corporate interest. So it is the verbal or written agreement of the employer that would stand up in court, not the pledge itself per se.
I don't know if it really offers any legal protection to independent breeders.

What do you think?

[Fred Hempel]

The OSSI pledge may be well-intentioned response to real problems in agriculture, but I would argue it is silly to think it does anything for OP breeders (other than freely providing them with material they can use to breed with, strictly for fun).

This is what is requested:

Through our Pledge, OSSI asks breeders and stewards of crop varieties to pledge to make their seeds available without restrictions on use, and to ask recipients of those seeds to make the same commitment.

How can a document calling on a breeder to immediately release all of their varieties with NO RESTRICTIONS protect a breeder? It does nothing to reward innovation of a breeder.

Frankly, it gives all power to seed producers and retailers who now have to pay nothing to the breeder. The retailers now have a nice story (Emancipated Seed!), but the breeder has been stripped of rights.

What other type of craftsman is bullied and shamed into releasing their workmanship for free?

Originally Posted by bower

Cole, have you read the OSSI pledge?
I don't have it in front of me, but I thought the wording was a bit ambiguous or difficult to understand without reading all the extra explanations, and there are questions as to whether it would be legally binding.
I think it works for the breeders who work professionally in the universitites, as a means of obtaining their employer's commitment not to sell the rights to the product in question to an exclusive corporate interest. So it is the verbal or written agreement of the employer that would stand up in court, not the pledge itself per se.
I don't know if it really offers any legal protection to independent breeders.

What do you think?

[Cole_Robbie]

Originally Posted by Fred Hempel

What other type of craftsman is bullied and shamed into releasing their workmanship for free?

I have an idea. Before you release a new OP tomato, you should plaster photographs of it everywhere. Then, when someone else inevitably tries selling your variety, even if they take their own photo, we'll sue them over the photo, claiming it is substantially similar to yours. IP law rewards those who are aggressively litigious.

[bower]

Originally Posted by Fred Hempel

The OSSI pledge may be well-intentioned response to real problems in agriculture, but I would argue it is silly to think it does anything for OP breeders (other than freely providing them with material they can use to breed with, strictly for fun).

This is what is requested:

Through our Pledge, OSSI asks breeders and stewards of crop varieties to pledge to make their seeds available without restrictions on use, and to ask recipients of those seeds to make the same commitment.

How can a document calling on a breeder to immediately release all of their varieties with NO RESTRICTIONS protect a breeder? It does nothing to reward innovation of a breeder.

Frankly, it gives all power to seed producers and retailers who now have to pay nothing to the breeder. The retailers now have a nice story (Emancipated Seed!), but the breeder has been stripped of rights.

What other type of craftsman is bullied and shamed into releasing their workmanship for free?

I went back to their FAQ page, and I think it may have changed since I first saw it.
In any case you are right that the pledge would prevent a PVP or other intellectual property rights. "Incompatible with "Plant Breeders Rights" crikey. Incompatible with rights but not opposed to arrangements..
"Is OSSI against intellectual property rights?

Users of OSSI seed have the freedom to reproduce that seed for their own use and for sale, and to use the seed in research and breeding. In that respect, the OSSI Pledge is incompatible with the intellectual property rights as currently applied to plants such as utility patents, Plant Variety Protection, Plant Breeders Rights, and Material Transfer Agreements that limit the rights of seed recipients to produce seed for replanting, for sale, and for use in research or breeding. OSSI is not opposed to arrangements that require sharing the benefits of new varieties with the breeder, as long as those arrangements do not restrict the freedom to use the seed."

As far as I know, the only intellectual property that restricts the freedom to use seed including OP's and commercial hybrids is when there's a genetic tag involved. No one else is imposing restrictions, or am I wrong? So why isn't the elephant squarely named? I'm sure there's much more to it because I don't know about the existing protections nor what is happening with Material Transfer agreements either.

I am personally opposed to the patenting of DNA, and certainly to banging out proprietary genetic tags with a CRISPR to own the progeny of the seed, which may be up and coming. OSSI certainly covers that but also toss away all intellectual property rights.
Indeed reading a little further, I see that they initially intended to develop a license, but instead went with a non-legally binding 'pledge' - a pledge that bans other licenses.
Alright after a load of reading I'm back where I started. It isn't clear to me!

Fred, you're wrong that other craftsmen aren't bullied and shamed into giving up work for free. Rest assured, the garage band that refuses to play benefit concerts will be ostracized.

[goodwin]

It irks me when a big seed company takes a known open-pollinated variety and gives it a new name and labels it a hybrid. We've seen that with several heirlooms, but I wonder if it is happening with some more recently developed varieties.
There are two hybrids in the catalogs this year which appear to be dead ringers for Danube, a variety I released in September of 2014.
I'll get some seed and see before I spout off anymore. It probably is just a coincidence - sort of convergent evolution - but has anyone else wondered about this?
Lee

[bower]

Originally Posted by goodwin

It irks me when a big seed company takes a known open-pollinated variety and gives it a new name and labels it a hybrid. We've seen that with several heirlooms, but I wonder if it is happening with some more recently developed varieties.
There are two hybrids in the catalogs this year which appear to be dead ringers for Danube, a variety I released in September of 2014.
I'll get some seed and see before I spout off anymore. It probably is just a coincidence - sort of convergent evolution - but has anyone else wondered about this?
Lee

If this has happened or does happen, I think there are 'truth in advertising' laws which apply.
Also if the information is made public, some of us at least would boycott the company responsible.

[Dutch]

Hi Lee,
I also am irked (to say to least) when a big seed company takes an open-pollinated variety and gives it a new name and labels it as a hybrid. I've seen their ways too often for my liking.

Dutch

[goodwin]

Well, we're all on the same page. I need to make one correction to my previous post. What I remembered as two varieties is just one. In one place it is listed as a hybrid and in the other they don't say. But both listings use the same name.
Although, when I think about the logistics of bringing a new variety to market I am not sure there would have been enough time between my release and this new tomato anyway. So they probably are different.
The key in the future will be the ability to easily identify a unique variety from a DNA sample. That will stop any foolishness that might be going on.
Lee

[Fred Hempel]

DNA fingerprinting is now available and cheap, and this is one reason I doubt that the "big companies" currently steal varieties, rename them, and claim they are hybrids.

It is just too easy to prove that they did it. Plus, it would require a company conspiracy to steal an OP variety and re-name it, which would also increase the risk even more. The company can't assume that all folks in the production chain would go along, without blowing the whistle.

Originally Posted by goodwin

Well, we're all on the same page. I need to make one correction to my previous post. What I remembered as two varieties is just one. In one place it is listed as a hybrid and in the other they don't say. But both listings use the same name.
Although, when I think about the logistics of bringing a new variety to market I am not sure there would have been enough time between my release and this new tomato anyway. So they probably are different.
The key in the future will be the ability to easily identify a unique variety from a DNA sample. That will stop any foolishness that might be going on.
Lee

[dwhughes]

Originally Posted by Fred Hempel

DNA fingerprinting is now available and cheap, and this is one reason I doubt that the "big companies" currently steal varieties, rename them, and claim they are hybrids.

It is just too easy to prove that they did it. Plus, it would require a company conspiracy to steal an OP variety and re-name it, which would also increase the risk even more. The company can't assume that all folks in the production chain would go along, without blowing the whistle.

This is probably the key to fair compensation. If someone copies an obscure piece of music and renames it, fans of the original will quickly find it - and it is easy to show the legal system that it is a copy. When USB devices for DNA analysis are widespread, tomato fans will be able to spot copies and report them. Protection along the lines of copyrights would probably make sense: people can make copies (save seeds) for personal use, but for commercial reproduction a license is required.

Dave

[nicollas]

Ah, didn't connected the dots

Not sure about big companies beeing interested by amateur hybrid varieties with tender skin and without a long list of disease resistances