>Jim was trying to compare the USDA field station actions to the pirating
of music CD's. To me it seems like comparing apples, oranges, and ---
potatoes--all are round in at least one dimension, edible, but differ in
other ways.
>When Griffiths was managing the development of commercial bulb culture here
>in the US, the source of the cultivars used was the Netherlands. Dutch bulbs
>were imported into the US and used as the foundation stocks for the crops to
>be developed in this country. The subject of royalties to the Dutch
>developers of these stocks was never mentioned, and doubtless no royalties
>were ever paid.
> And do
>you think my comparison of the black market video industry and what was
>done to establish commercial bulb culture in the US fair?
My understanding was that Griffiths raised the Bellingham Hybrids
from seed, the seed was purchased from Purdy, who in turn purchased some
of the seed from Kessler of Los Angeles. Neither of these men were likely
to have purchased the plants from the dutch, as they dealt primarily (but not
completely) with (western USA) native plants. In any case, after raising them
from seed, the original seller normally has no claim on the seedlings.
I don't know specifics of the stocks of tulips, narcissus, etc that
Griffiths tried to produce, but my assumption is that he was trying to
develop varieties better adapted to american growing conditions, and raised
much of his stock from seed. If this is so, the same standard applies.
The piraters of black market CDs do not add value, only attempt
to undercut the authorized distributers. To the best of my knowledge,
Griffiths was adding value by selecting varieties he hoped would be more
adapted to american conditions and market demands. At least in the case
of the Bellingham Hybrids, he did so by raising the lilies from seed purchased
from american sources.
Ken