A
Anonymous
Guest
Your right, it doesn't apply.
But I needed to stir the pot.:lol:
But I needed to stir the pot.:lol:
Take your pick, Biopiracy or tank acclimated livestock?
- Thread starter Kalkbreath
- Start date
JeremyR":23kcy390 said:
The simple reason for this is that I do not have an answer.
Right now, you are absolutely correct in describing the situation, but I would describe this as a 'messy free-for-all', not 'crap'.
Here it is that you are completely wrong.
Read the EULAs on some of your installed commercial software. By installing it, you have most likely signed away all of your rights. You paid money and you 'own' nothing, and the EULA can often contain language such that you cannot install that software on another computer, nor give it away, nor sell it. They tell you straight up that the software may not even run, or do what it is advertised to do.
And all of this is legal.
I posed the question earlier, what if the coral farms in Indonesia banded together and collectively came up with similar language that included a non-compete clause, effectively making it illegal for you to sell fragments of that coral commercially?
Why would you assume that they would try to patent a 'species'?
Scenario A:
Let's say that I bought into this whole idea and I was over there running a farm... How difficult would it be for me to find a rare and desirable color morph? How difficult would it be for me to brand-name it and copyright that name? How difficult would it be for me to then vigorously defend my law-protected coral against other sellers marketing fragments of that coral when I have incorporated the non-compete clause into my selling contract?
The market as you describe right now does not preclude this scenario from playing out. I 'own' the coral and I do not give you rights to commercially produce and market clones or frags of my coral. If I were a village chief running a coral farm, I would protect every coral type I had in just this manner, and any coral exporter that traded 'my' coral to another village would be sue-able under the existing laws of just about every country on the planet.
Scenario B:
Compare this with another 'farmer', this one who owns no reef patch, and farms in the open water. Every single coral he has, he has gotten from another source. Maybe he has paid a village for it, maybe he hasn't.
Since he is smart, he also does the above, copyrighting his corals. He markets the corals and makes his money.
In scenario B, you could very easily make the argument that this is biopiracy. He takes a resource, or pays very little for it, then is able to prevent the original source village from selling their coral, even though they are selling genetically identical clones. Here the village gets no benefit whatsoever from their coral, therefore there is no incentive to protect it either.
It isn't hard to apply Scenario B to Scenario C, where the farmer is a closed system producer here in the States. As long as there is no non-compete clause, he is home-free. But realize that there is also nothing to stop him from copyrighting some unique trait or feature and selling it and to be able to vigorously defend it in the courts.
When he then starts to file against others to protect himself against imports from his original source, he would be within his rights.
In these somewhat simplistic scenarios, I could see Scenario A as being somewhat right and just, but I imagine that Scenario B or C would not be seen as being right or just, especially from the village's point of view. At least they receive a benefit from Scenario A. Under B or C, they sort of get screwed. And I believe that B or C would be labelled 'Biopiracy' by those that believe in that sort of thing.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
Mike,
A patent only works if: you patent it BEFORE the sell of the idea or product and also at the same time you must actively enforce it. It is not clear that you can patent a species such as a coral. You would have to prove that it is unique. I doubt that could ever be done. Look at Glow Fish, they didn't patent the fish. Anyone could come along and produce a similar produce with a slightly different method. Plus any patent has a life. So after that life is up then its free to anyone.
If the said products were sold for the express propose of only allow someone to look at it in their tank and not profit from its culture then you have a point. However if you don't make those provisions from the very beginning than you have no claim at all. No need crying biopiracy after the fact. Now how do you expect to prove that a restricted no culturing allowed coral is different from one that is in the market today.
This would be like saying the clownfish guys are committing a crime by raising exotic species. ARE THEY? Should they only be allowed to cultured in the country of origin? If so, who is allowed to culture them, only indigenous people? NO of course not, they are just filling a demand.
Of course a country is allowed to own its resources. But what people do with it after you sell it, is out of producers control. Could OPEC tell the US we could only produce low emission diesel fuel with their oil, I think not. They could refuse to sell us oil if we didn't produce a certain type of product but they can't control what we do with it once we have it. That would take an international treaty.
Market forces on this type of product will dictate that the best product and price wins, no matter what country they were found in or are cultured in. Find better, cheaper way to produce them and put the on the market, no need to waste a bunch of time crying over spilt milk.
A patent only works if: you patent it BEFORE the sell of the idea or product and also at the same time you must actively enforce it. It is not clear that you can patent a species such as a coral. You would have to prove that it is unique. I doubt that could ever be done. Look at Glow Fish, they didn't patent the fish. Anyone could come along and produce a similar produce with a slightly different method. Plus any patent has a life. So after that life is up then its free to anyone.
If the said products were sold for the express propose of only allow someone to look at it in their tank and not profit from its culture then you have a point. However if you don't make those provisions from the very beginning than you have no claim at all. No need crying biopiracy after the fact. Now how do you expect to prove that a restricted no culturing allowed coral is different from one that is in the market today.
This would be like saying the clownfish guys are committing a crime by raising exotic species. ARE THEY? Should they only be allowed to cultured in the country of origin? If so, who is allowed to culture them, only indigenous people? NO of course not, they are just filling a demand.
Of course a country is allowed to own its resources. But what people do with it after you sell it, is out of producers control. Could OPEC tell the US we could only produce low emission diesel fuel with their oil, I think not. They could refuse to sell us oil if we didn't produce a certain type of product but they can't control what we do with it once we have it. That would take an international treaty.
Market forces on this type of product will dictate that the best product and price wins, no matter what country they were found in or are cultured in. Find better, cheaper way to produce them and put the on the market, no need to waste a bunch of time crying over spilt milk.
spawner":28122jkh said:
I've tried very explicitly to make it clear that I would not even enter the murky 'after the fact' waters. It is not possible to trace the origin of some species as they travelled around the world with us pre-history, pre-concept of law, pre-concept of written language most likely...
Let's move past that argument as it is in no way defensible.
And again, I'm not sure that I buy into the whole biopiracy idea in the first place. I see both sides of the argument though, which seems to make me a tad bit unpopular... :lol:
I used patent in the gene example, whereas I used copyright in the coral farm scenarios. I thought that those were appropriate for each. I also am not sure that you could patent a coral, but you could copyright "Mike's Hot Pink Millepora" I think, and use the courts to enforce infringement.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
I don't think you can control the sale or distribution of horticultural products without making your own cross or modification, why would you be able to apply a copyright to a coral? Say he made X importer sign some kind of no-frag waiver. He then sells it to a hobbyist, who sells it to me. I didn't sign a waiver. He has no legal copyright, because he didn't invent the strain. I don't think it would hold up personally, but that's just me.. I'm not a legal expert.
How would you prove that it is the same coral after it has morphed into different colors in different tank conditions? Would you do a DNA test?
I think it would be very difficult if not impossible to prove in court short of the DNA test. If that would do it.
How would the village own the coral in the first place? It would belong to the whole country of origin or countries depending on distribution of said coral. Just like fish etc in the US. The commercial fishing industry tried to say that they had a right to the fish in the ocean. I think that it was agreed that they belonged to the goverment; State, Federal etc. Wouldn't it be the same?
I think it would be very difficult if not impossible to prove in court short of the DNA test. If that would do it.
How would the village own the coral in the first place? It would belong to the whole country of origin or countries depending on distribution of said coral. Just like fish etc in the US. The commercial fishing industry tried to say that they had a right to the fish in the ocean. I think that it was agreed that they belonged to the goverment; State, Federal etc. Wouldn't it be the same?
Could you apply this same reasoning to dogs? If I buy a pure bred dog, I can't go and breed this dog and sell pups of my own? Why not? A natural part of the product (dog) is that it can breed and multiply. A natural part of many corals are that they can outgrow a tank, need to be fragged, and the frags can be placed in other tanks. Comes with the territory, doesn't it?
Good points,
Well here is what could happen, you could patent a strain, if you could prove that it is unique. Like your Mike's Hot Pink Millipore example. I don't think you could copyright the frag, but a patent on it would hold up, again if you could prove that it was yours own creation.
DNA would give you that proof. And yes if you started with one colony then you could work up a microsatellite tag for it and know if anyone had knocked your's off. However it wouldn't prevent another company from producing the exact same color pattern or type from another colony of different origin. Your name would be copyrighted but not the coral, the strain would be patentable, but not the species. This would only cost you about 100K to work up the DNA and patent paper work.
I am not a lawyer and it be interesting to see what a patent lawyer would say about this. The DNA stuff is very easy to do.
Well here is what could happen, you could patent a strain, if you could prove that it is unique. Like your Mike's Hot Pink Millipore example. I don't think you could copyright the frag, but a patent on it would hold up, again if you could prove that it was yours own creation.
DNA would give you that proof. And yes if you started with one colony then you could work up a microsatellite tag for it and know if anyone had knocked your's off. However it wouldn't prevent another company from producing the exact same color pattern or type from another colony of different origin. Your name would be copyrighted but not the coral, the strain would be patentable, but not the species. This would only cost you about 100K to work up the DNA and patent paper work.
I am not a lawyer and it be interesting to see what a patent lawyer would say about this. The DNA stuff is very easy to do.
I had no idea that when I used the word "biopiracy" that it would stimulate so much discussion. There are many fascinating aspects that have been raised.
One practical aspect as far as the exports and trade in corals from foreign countries (like PI and Indo) is the need to distinguish between wild-harvested corals and those that have been raised on coral farms in the ocean. This might simply be the use of epoxy with a stamp on the base or it could be something internal (e.g. a dye embedded in the skeleton). Goverment agencies seem to be willing to allow the export of farmed corals, if they can be distinguished from wild-harvested corals. If they cannot be distinguished, the trade in corals may be banned because of concerns that wild-harvest methods are destructive to coral reefs. Another aspect of this problem is that CITES currently considers corals cultured in the ocean to be wild-harvest. I assume that this problem will be solved by changing the CITES rules used by exporting countries. Dr. Andrew Bruckner of NOAA/NMFS recently told me that marking the farmed corals may make it possible for governments to allow larger numbers of cultured corals to be exported. Only wild-harvested corals should be subject to quotas associated with exports tied with CITES permits.
Another trend I see is the demand for rare color morphs of hard or soft corals. Presumably, most of these occur in nature but are uncommon or rare. Now we get into the questions raised by Mike Kirda, where the villagers near the reef of origin wish to patent these rare forms. Or someone in the importing country decides to patent the color morph, after having succeeded in reproducing them (presumably by asexual fragging), in order to corner the market and to block the import of the original form from the wild. I see Mike Kirda's point that this gets into the ethical question concerning who owns the resource, the host country or those in the importing country? This can then be broken down further into the question as to whether individuals can patent a naturally occurring variety of coral or whether just governments can do this.
The glowfish analogy is also of interest. The genes that cause the fish to glow under UV light were obtained from a sea anemone and inserted into the genome of zebrafish by scientists at the University of Singapore. Someone in Connecticut learned about it, and obtained the zebrafish with this genetically engineered characteristic. They then established a business relationship with Segrest Farms to breed and market them. They claimed that they had copyrighted the glowfish, so that no one else could breed and market them. I question the legality of this. Shouldn't the copyright lie with the scientists at the University of Singapore? How does buying some glowfish and breeding them, give the Americans mentioned the right to copyright zebrafish that glow? There are lots of legal questions here that the courts need to sort out.
Personally, I don't believe that anyone should be allowed to copyright or patent any type or variety of a species (such as a rare color morph of a coral species) that occurs naturally in nature. However, I can see the day when someone genetically engineers coral color varieties (e.g., corals that glow in the dark and come in outrageous vibrant colors created by inserting genes from other coral species). If this turns out to be a coral farming company in the U.S.A., then I think the company should be able to apply for a copyright/patent to prevent others from propagating and selling them. These are just my opinions.
I fear that the questions raised by those on this forum could lead to a legal morass that eventually shuts down the aquarium trade. There may be no need for legal measures by the U.S. Congress (the Case bill). All we need are some greedy entrepreneurs that decide to copyright some coral variety and then a lawsuit by their competitors. Entrepreneurs in the trade may be setting the stage for the demise of the marine aquarium trade.
Peter Rubec
One practical aspect as far as the exports and trade in corals from foreign countries (like PI and Indo) is the need to distinguish between wild-harvested corals and those that have been raised on coral farms in the ocean. This might simply be the use of epoxy with a stamp on the base or it could be something internal (e.g. a dye embedded in the skeleton). Goverment agencies seem to be willing to allow the export of farmed corals, if they can be distinguished from wild-harvested corals. If they cannot be distinguished, the trade in corals may be banned because of concerns that wild-harvest methods are destructive to coral reefs. Another aspect of this problem is that CITES currently considers corals cultured in the ocean to be wild-harvest. I assume that this problem will be solved by changing the CITES rules used by exporting countries. Dr. Andrew Bruckner of NOAA/NMFS recently told me that marking the farmed corals may make it possible for governments to allow larger numbers of cultured corals to be exported. Only wild-harvested corals should be subject to quotas associated with exports tied with CITES permits.
Another trend I see is the demand for rare color morphs of hard or soft corals. Presumably, most of these occur in nature but are uncommon or rare. Now we get into the questions raised by Mike Kirda, where the villagers near the reef of origin wish to patent these rare forms. Or someone in the importing country decides to patent the color morph, after having succeeded in reproducing them (presumably by asexual fragging), in order to corner the market and to block the import of the original form from the wild. I see Mike Kirda's point that this gets into the ethical question concerning who owns the resource, the host country or those in the importing country? This can then be broken down further into the question as to whether individuals can patent a naturally occurring variety of coral or whether just governments can do this.
The glowfish analogy is also of interest. The genes that cause the fish to glow under UV light were obtained from a sea anemone and inserted into the genome of zebrafish by scientists at the University of Singapore. Someone in Connecticut learned about it, and obtained the zebrafish with this genetically engineered characteristic. They then established a business relationship with Segrest Farms to breed and market them. They claimed that they had copyrighted the glowfish, so that no one else could breed and market them. I question the legality of this. Shouldn't the copyright lie with the scientists at the University of Singapore? How does buying some glowfish and breeding them, give the Americans mentioned the right to copyright zebrafish that glow? There are lots of legal questions here that the courts need to sort out.
Personally, I don't believe that anyone should be allowed to copyright or patent any type or variety of a species (such as a rare color morph of a coral species) that occurs naturally in nature. However, I can see the day when someone genetically engineers coral color varieties (e.g., corals that glow in the dark and come in outrageous vibrant colors created by inserting genes from other coral species). If this turns out to be a coral farming company in the U.S.A., then I think the company should be able to apply for a copyright/patent to prevent others from propagating and selling them. These are just my opinions.
I fear that the questions raised by those on this forum could lead to a legal morass that eventually shuts down the aquarium trade. There may be no need for legal measures by the U.S. Congress (the Case bill). All we need are some greedy entrepreneurs that decide to copyright some coral variety and then a lawsuit by their competitors. Entrepreneurs in the trade may be setting the stage for the demise of the marine aquarium trade.
Peter Rubec
wow..my point is how is it biopiracy if the "assumed" owners of the resource, first off agree to sell me the stock to captive propagate myself and sell in conjuntion to their mariculter products..if we both agree on a term/conditions..???
The mariculterist and I cant work together like trained professionals trying to achive a collective goal, without some big wig trying to put their 2 cents in and getting their part.
Propagating coral is one of the best parts of the hobby and what hooks alot to it.
Try to make that crap fly with them.
The mariculterist and I cant work together like trained professionals trying to achive a collective goal, without some big wig trying to put their 2 cents in and getting their part.
Propagating coral is one of the best parts of the hobby and what hooks alot to it.
Try to make that crap fly with them.
PeterIMA":32x0jqhj said:
What's your definition of farmed corals Peter? If a frag is snapped off the reef and then reattached to a concrete plug with epoxy does this qualify as farmed? It don't take a rocket scientist to look at a colony and see if the base is attached to something or if it was fresh broken. Besides what harm does it do to break off a small piece of sps coral anyway? You must never have seen Walt Smith's video of how they take frags. Somehow the logic of all this escapes me. Perhaps a little education is all that is needed.
Mitch
Mariculture corals are grown from fragged large colonies. The idea is that adult colonies regrow quickly ... and the act of breaking away small fragments is not unlike what parrot fish remove naturally.
Julian Sprung estimated that one adult parrot fish eats 14 tons of coral a year. Thats a lot of frags .
My estimates are that 10 coral frags equal one pound ..so one parrot fish eats 200,000 + frags per year. A few parot fish eat more coral frags then CITES alows to be exported ......? There is something wrong with that. :wink:
Julian Sprung estimated that one adult parrot fish eats 14 tons of coral a year. Thats a lot of frags .
My estimates are that 10 coral frags equal one pound ..so one parrot fish eats 200,000 + frags per year. A few parot fish eat more coral frags then CITES alows to be exported ......? There is something wrong with that. :wink:
Introducing... PARROTFISH
"Whoa! What's that sound?"
Crunch, crunch, crunch... somehow, it seems downright weird to hear the sound of someone eating peanut brittle while you're snorkeling! Startled at first, you'll soon discover that this distinctive noise is made by grazing parrotfish.
Prevalent on the world's tropical reefs, parrotfish are so named because of their prominent "beaks." Actually fused teeth, these powerful "beaks" are used to scrape algae from coral and rocks, creating the ever-present crunching sound. Ever wonder how we get sand? Well, the parrotfish is a major source. Their digestive systems draw out algae and polyps from the chunks of coral they eat, efficiently grinding everything in the process. This coral residue is eventually excreted as sand. In the case of parrotfish, "Sand happens!"
"Whoa! What's that sound?"
Crunch, crunch, crunch... somehow, it seems downright weird to hear the sound of someone eating peanut brittle while you're snorkeling! Startled at first, you'll soon discover that this distinctive noise is made by grazing parrotfish.
Prevalent on the world's tropical reefs, parrotfish are so named because of their prominent "beaks." Actually fused teeth, these powerful "beaks" are used to scrape algae from coral and rocks, creating the ever-present crunching sound. Ever wonder how we get sand? Well, the parrotfish is a major source. Their digestive systems draw out algae and polyps from the chunks of coral they eat, efficiently grinding everything in the process. This coral residue is eventually excreted as sand. In the case of parrotfish, "Sand happens!"
naesco":tfvmwkrf said:
I've got a several pictures of healed corals that exhibit parrotfish bite patterns. For a while, some scientists thought it was a new disease, referred to as 'purple blotch disease', until it was later discovered that the coral tissue was not diseased so much as colored up from growing quickly over the parrotfish bites.
Parrotfish can tear up a lot of live corals...
Regards.
Mike Kirda
treeman":4fikoe40 said:
The trend in Indonesia and the Philippines (and Fiji and Tonga, etc.) is that the LGU (Local Governmental Unit) (or tribe, in the case of Fiji/Tonga, etc.) is the one that OWNS the Reef, usually from the shoreline (or nearby) to some relatively arbitrary distance from the shoreline. Say like 100 meters offshore to 10km offshore. If the local village owns the reef, then they own the coral that lives on the reef.
The tribal systems in Fiji, etc. are often presided over by a village elder, who gets to decide who gets to go where and do what on the reef.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
