Much of attention on genetically modified food patents has focused on soybeans and corn. In an interesting study, UGA law professor Paul Heald and anthropology professor Susannah Chapman focus on patents covering vegetables (excluding corn, soybeans, and canola) as well as their commercialization rates. Their study covers both plant variety protection certificates and utility patents for 42 vegetable varieties. They find that – for the most part – patents have not had a large impact on the vegetable market. They highlight their findings as follows:
- Only 3.8% of varieties available in 2004 were ever subject to protection under patent law or the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA);
- More than 16% of all vegetable varieties that have ever been patented were commercially available in 2004; and
- In 2004, approximately 4.5% of protected, or once protected, varieties consisted of inventions that were at least twenty years old.
Read the paper here.
In an earlier paper, the pair showed that vegetable crop diversity increased in the past century — a finding that cuts against conventional wisdom in the field. Read that paper here.
Two quick little plant patent stories.
Dig at lawyers: A guy who developed and patented some new tree varieties (I won’t give his name, I don’t know if he wants me blabbing this story) had used the same lawyer for years, then the lawyer up and died. When the tree guy was asked why he quit getting plant patents on his newer trees, he answered, “I didn’t have the time to educate another lawyer on plant patents.”
Digging in the mud: A delicious vegetable plant we grow in Hawaii is called taro. A big blight was coming, so powerful that it was killing every taro plant in areas it spread to. A plant inventor searched the world and found some resistant plants, crossed them in with our tasty ones, and created taro plants that were both resistant to the blight and good to eat. But then taro growers complained that since the blight would kill every other taro plant, the inventor would now own taro. The inventor gave up the patent rights.
I disagree with Ms. Chapman. I draw everyone’s attention to the movie Food, Inc. You will never see food the same again. You will probably lose your appetite, as well. Consider the movie an incentive to diet. The trailer is found here: link to foodincmovie.com
Nobody seems interested posting further comments on this thread, so I’ll post my question here to stir the pot a bit:
If it turns out that many of our innocent civilians and/or soldiers died in another terrorist attack(s) because the Obama administration decided to allow the Detroit underwear bomber to lawyer-up before being “interrogated,” who, besides the terrorists, would you blame for those deaths?
Hi Lionel,
Re: “…my ironically self-deprecating posting name.”
Neat, we have that in common.
Re: “Facts are meaningless. They can be used to prove anything.”
That is the essence of successful lawering. Sad, but too true.
Well, I am a fan, otherwise I would not have chosen my ironically self-deprecating posting name.
That quote of Homer’s is also one of my all-time favorites along with “Facts are meaningless. They can be used to prove anything.”
Dear Lionel,
You win the Award for the Most Apt Pen Name.
link to youtube.com
Congrats.
Homer “Lisa, Just because I don’t care, doesn’t mean I don’t understand.”
Lisa “You sir are a baboon! Baboon! Baboon! Baboon!”
Good to hear that our ancestors who were farming these things thousands of years ago knew what they were doing, too, and that we haven’t needed to do that much vegetable invention worthy of patent protection!
Happy new year and happy blogging to everyone breathing the rarefied air up here in the realm of patent law.
Re: “Does the mailing of a Notification of a Non-Compliant Appeal Brief” improve the BPAI’s performance evaluation metrics?”
Considering that this is same Agency that for years has been conning Congress and others with false statistics on application pendancies re continuations, massively counting all RCE’s as both “new” applications and an “abandonment” of the same pending application,
do you even need to ask?
nunyf ingth si, I 2 cksu ta glnileps dna abbscrle. Og urfige.
wne oecd — ghctota
esay ot fgruie tou, abbscrle aeoynn?
Hiho, hiho ‘the fat lady is not singing,’
Tanks for the yaertoeorlay ifno —
Ok, ok — but my Mommy tsught me that the early bird gets the worm.
I’m ginog fsihnig whit me wrom — but I be bcak soon, not to wrory.
go fgurie dhat out.
“First comment of a new decade — Happy 2010”
Are you sure? Perhaps a year too early.
Since there was no year 0, decades runs from 1 through 10 (e.g. 1 – 10, 1961 – 1970, 1991 – 2000).
Hi Max,
Smug ain’t so bad.
You ain’t no baboon.
That distinction is saved for the real baboon(s?).
There is at least one regular baboon here on Patently-O, wouldn’t you agree?
It has always puzzled me, whence cometh the baboon(s)?
Off-topic
Hi Dennis
Would you be interested in having an informal survey regarding Non-Compliant Appeal Briefs? E.g., “How many appeal briefs did you file between 1 December 2008 and 30 November 2009? How many of those received a Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief?”
Does the mailing of such Notice improve the BPAI’s performance evaluation metrics, e.g., that the backlog begins once a “compliant” appeal brief is received?
Danke schön.
Dear JAOI, no it wasn’t me using a new alias.
I wonder who it could have been. Unfortunately, I’m not clever enough to cut through the given alias and match the individual writing style to a more long-serving alias, nor to remember which of the regular contributers is my friend, and who’s against me.
Since we are now in dialogue, I will take the opportunity to add something, namely, that I was disappointed in you, that you categorized as the “smug” dispensing of “advice” my plain and simple exhortation to readers to debate cleanly, and write less about baboons.
With your last line though, I can happily concur. Happy New Year.
Greetings UD,
Re:
“I think we can all agree with Just an ordinary inventor.”
Your sincerity reeks.
* * * * * * *
Dear Maxy Ol’ Boy,
You appear to have a fan (or is that Just you Trying To Trick me?)
BTAsIM, HNY Fellow Patently-Oh Fellow.
I think we can all agree with Just an ordinary inventor. What this blog needs is more name-calling and less reasonable discourse. It really makes my blood boil to hear someone suggest otherwise.
First blog I’ve seen comment on plant patents!
Dear Max,
Re: “I want to be the next to congratulate Dennis. There are plenty of other IPR blogs, all around the world, many of them excellent, but none of them (as far as I know) attracting and maintaining anything like the level of respondent activity of Professor Crouch’s blog.
I find it totally astonishing that Dennis keeps it up, year on year. Whence comes his inexhausible energy?”
Well said my friend! I am sure most all heartedly concur.
* * * * *
Re: “If we want him to keep going as enthusiastically as ever (and I think we do), we owe it to him to keep this blog vibrant and controversial, and as intelligent as we can each manage. Me, I would prefer in 2010 not to have to read so often the word “baboon”. Nothing against baboons: It’s just that these endless references are boring.”
My guess is you are feeling pretty smug to be giving others advice.
Please get over it.
My guess is that no one here appreciates such advice and,
it pisses off many.
I want to be the next to congratulate Dennis. There are plenty of other IPR blogs, all around the world, many of them excellent, but none of them (as far as I know) attracting and maintaining anything like the level of respondent activity of Professor Crouch’s blog.
I find it totally astonishing that Dennis keeps it up, year on year. Whence comes his inexhausible energy?
If we want him to keep going as enthusiastically as ever (and I think we do), we owe it to him to keep this blog vibrant and controversial, and as intelligent as we can each manage. Me, I would prefer in 2010 not to have to read so often the word “baboon”. Nothing against baboons: It’s just that these endless references are boring.
First comment of a new decade — Happy 2010
Indeed.
And this kind of academic study, providing researched facts instead of media and political anti-patent and anti-technology propaganda, can be very useful.
However, “excluding corn and soybeans” may be excluding the two most foriegn politically sensitive issues?
[Notwithstanding that corn (maize) was already the product of several thousand years of selective breeding of mutations and nothing at all like any plant in nature.]
Nice comment my happy little white bunny.
Awesome comment about a phenomenal IP et al. blog!
“David French writes:
May I use the occasion of being first to post a comment on the Patently’O blog to congratulate Dennis Crouch on his magnificent contribution to the field of intellectual property. Dennis remarkably has been able to produce almost daily observations and valuable links that lead to ever deeper understanding of this complex field. Dennis, your contribution is extraordinary.
Also remarkable is the extent to which interesting and often entertaining comments are provided by a significant number of the many readers who follow the Patently’O blog.”
Hear, hear.
David French writes:
May I use the occasion of being first to post a comment on the Patently’O blog to congratulate Dennis Crouch on his magnificent contribution to the field of intellectual property. Dennis remarkably has been able to produce almost daily observations and valuable links that lead to ever deeper understanding of this complex field. Dennis, your contribution is extraordinary.
Also remarkable is the extent to which interesting and often entertaining comments are provided by a significant number of the many readers who follow the Patently’O blog.
Now, in response to my duty to comment on this blog posting, I note that the authors of this paper observe:
“Only 3.8% of varieties available in 2004 were ever subject to protection under patent law or the Plant Variety Protection Act………. Although intellectual property rights appear to be an insignificant part of the crop diversity story……..”
In fact, I am surprised based on the data in the paper at the degree to which patent protection is being sought for new plant varieties. Adopting the point of view of economists who see themselves as market engineers, the patent system may well be fulfilling its purpose if it simply induces people to try to develop successful innovations. Even if they only succeed occasionally, one success may be spectacular.
The good of the country and society is served by the innovative advances that make a difference. The fact that many try and fail to succeed in the race may be unfortunate for the casualties, but if the patent system produces advances that would not ever have occurred in its absence, then it is serving the public good.
Happy new year to all.
Comments are closed.