So... Anyone know if this is likely to hold up in court? It sounds absurd, but IANAL.
The other thing that I keep thinking about is resale. How does that tie in?
The other thing that I keep thinking about is resale. How does that tie in?
At that point the company that originally bred the grape would sue and claim patent infringement but also for EULA contract violation, giving them additional ammunition.
If you can get additional protection by printing some text on a package, why would you not do it? They spent twelve years breeding this strain, it would suck for someone to steal it.
First we need to decide whether a naturally occurring biological and agricultural process that forms the basis of human civilization is "stealing."
Was the introduction of potatoes to Europe an act of grand larceny on a historical scale?
At what point do we decide some life capable of naturally and spontaneously reproducing is patentable, and some life isn't? Should it extend to breeds of animals as well?
If someone dumps a pack of grapes by the side of the road, someone else comes along and picks the fruit that later grows, are they pirating fruit? If they decide they like it and plant their own garden, is that a patent violation? They never agreed to an EULA or even knew of its existence. They found it naturally.
I'm sure this all sounds ridiculous. That's precisely because it is.
The difference between patenting a chemical compound is a patentable compound is probably not producing itself naturally without constant human intervention. Someone, for example, won't be patenting oxygen. They can maybe patent a specific process for producing oxygen, but oxygen is naturally occurring. If a plant is growable from a seed or some other self-sustaining method, it'll continue to produce itself naturally without human intervention as well.
So your argument is that if something can self-replicate, it shouldn't be able to be patented? Let's say we invent self-replicating nanobots in the future, should that be not patentable?
As written it is a bit too broad since it does not allow the consumer to synthesize anything in their bodies that coincides with what's in the fruit.
GMO patents are usually done via standard utility patents, the plant patent is actually a third category separate from design or utility patents.
Plant patent laws should be repealed and consigned to the dustbin of history.
I was pointing out the weakness of their argument. Just because something is old and established doesn't make it good.
I find the opposite to be true.
It would already be illegal to grow clones of the plant anyway, at least for commercial use, so whether or not the EULA is binding is kind of irrelevant.