Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I have some of these, they're quite neat. Needs to be in proper darkness - we moved ours into our bedroom as a nightlight.

The company has made statements indicating propagating for personal use is OK.



I'm buying some and giving the seeds to as many neighbours as possible for free. Imagine patenting a fucking plant.


Imagine spending years and millions of dollars doing the R&D on said plant, and finding mass-cultured clones for sale in Home Depot the next year undercutting your investment.

It's a novel invention and no one needs glowing petunias. I think that's pretty much the ideal scenario for a patent.


If your business model relies on fairly draconian control over the liberties of individuals in ways that defy normal human social norms (like propagating and giving away plants), then its probably not the right business model. Not even just from a moral standpoint; its a losing business model.

Also, exerting control over a commercial cloning effort and trying to control personal use and propagation are totally different scenarios.

The reality is their business is just not going to be substantially hurt by personal propagation and use.


Again, the business recognizes this difference. They openly permit personal propagation. They just don't want you starting a for-profit glowing plants nursery with your clones.


Does "personal propagation" include giving them to friends and family?


Legally? Probably not.

Practically? Unless you gift it to a thousand "friends", they're unlikely to a) hear of it, b) care about it, or c) break even on the legal costs of going after it.


Imagine that genetic modification escapes into wild, and then everyone on the plannet affected by it. How your patent will help to avoid that?


It can't. That's not what patents are for. The same could happen for an unpatented modified plant.

We have the USDA for these things. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/news/program-update/aphis-issues-...

> APHIS found this modified petunia is unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk compared to other cultivated petunia. As a result, it is not subject to regulation under 7 CFR part 340. From a plant pest risk perspective, this petunia may be safely grown and bred in the United States.


Monsanto has sued (and won) several lawsuits where their patented seeds cross polinated with non-GMO crops due to wind, etc.


That is... crazy. Who do you sue? Mother Nature? The farmer who "received" their crops? Who pays damages, etc?


Imagine that people have been breeding animals and plants for thousands and thousands of years, and still anybody is free to do what they want with them.


Getting two animals to fuck and genetically engineering a plant in the lab are… not quite comparable in required levels of effort. Even then, if you want semen from a Kentucky Derby-winning thoroughbred to try and build off those genes, it'll cost you. Or a purebred dog.

No one's putting in decades of R&D into something like this if they can only sell a few thousand for a single year before the big nurseries take over.


People have been making wheels for nearly as long, and yet Ford can patent new wheel designs.


plant patents are explicitly one of THE categories of patents (in the US).

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/data/patde...


Imagine patenting something that doesn't exist in nature that you created? It's also not a foodstuff or required for living in any way.


there is no normative legality of these things.. or anything.. its just whatever people decide the law to be at the time..


Edit: I did not realize that the person I'm replying to was commenting on the petunias, not the article.


You are quite correct, that's not how it works.

Corn mazes are actually created by selectively planing the corn in a pattern or by selectively cutting down plants to create the maze. This can be done with a variety of different plants, but corn is a popular choice because of it's height, durability, and the timing of its harvest.

I suspect the similarity of its other name (maize) is just a coincidence.


Hopefully someone has "the Amazing Maize Maze". (Hopefully she's named May and so it's "May's Amazing Maize Maze".)


The propagation won't spread the glow-in-the-dark, so why wouldn't they?


The Firefly petunias retain their glow with propagation. Cloning via a cutting is the easiest and most reliable way.

The seeds are hit-or-miss, but the genes definitely get passed on in some.


Why wouldn't propagation create further glowing plants, they're genetically modified?


Because I mistakenly thought the comment was referring to the plants that are the subject of the article, which aren't genetically modified.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: