When did you place your order? Mine was Dec24. It could be too late for Schlabach’s Snapdragon.
mailed 8 dec, would have arrived maybe 14 dec
Schlabach’s came through, I got a tree tagged “NY1” from them today. hopefully they’ll have it again next year. if not I can start slinging scion in eight years when the patent’s up
1 Like
Awesome news! I’ll try to put my order in earlier next year.
NY1 is still under plant patent, exclusively licensed to growers belonging to NYAG LLC (dba Crunch Time Apple Growers). If you’d like to keep your tree, please reach out to Crunch Time to join the LLC and pay to proper sub-license fee and royalties that are due. Schlabach’s is also not an authorized nursery.
1 Like
Is someone going to go take the tree from them? How does that work.
This sounds like a scam. I wouldn’t pay. I would think that the company hired to pursue the plant patents would make more money by chasing after the nursery that sold the tree (probably trees) than one solitary grower on a message board.
Is the effort really worth the payoff?
1 Like
Thats my thought as well. Seems like a waste of resources for a single person growing it.
Yes, the effort can be worth the payoff. You can get a lot of publicity that will deter future violations…
“Is someone going to go take the tree from them? How does that work.”
They file a lawsuit against you and the seller and you have to get an attorney.
They joined the forum just to make that comment. @z0r bought a tree from a nursery. He did nothing wrong. Even stated he would wait for the patent to run out to give out scion. I wouldn’t pay that person any attention. If there is an issue, it’s with the nursery, not the person who bought it.
1 Like
The legal issue is with both of them.
Possessing a patented plant without paying the patent owner is patent infringement and is illegal.
Are you an employee or legal representative of NY AG?
That would be true if they can prove z0r knew about it before purchasing it. If you buy something stolen from e-bay are you guilty? No, all you did was make a purchase. You had no idea.
Now as far as him further possessing it I don’t know. It’s the nurseries that pay that royalty and they pass it to you in the price. In the end if a nursery is selling these trees, there are bigger problems than z0r.
The issue is not whether he knew about it. The issue is whether he should have known about it, and he should have. If it were to go to trial he would lose on that issue. But it wouldn’t go to trial anyone. He would wind up paying a fine and damages if the patent owners pushed it.
I’m continuing because I love a good debate, nothing personal. So you are saying when looking at e-bay it is your job to know if the item is stolen? It was never z0r’s job to know if the nursery had paid the royalty or not. He just bought a tree. Your average person doesn’t even know about those things. Each state is different and you may be right, but I just don’t see anyone tracking z0r down to press charges over what is most likely a dollar royalty.
Patents are Federal jurisdiction only. Per Cornell Law, “Unless permitted by the patent owner, one commits patent infringement by making, using, offering to sell, or selling something that contains every element of a patented claim or its equivalent while the patent is in effect.” I assuming “growing” a patented plant counts as “using” it, but I don’t feel like checking.
It’s an interesting topic. We almost need another thread for it. Think about it, any of us could have bought that tree.
No, I did not say that when looking at e-bay it is your job to know if the item is stolen.
Misrepresenting what I said and replacing it with a completely inapplicable example is not actually the way to engage in debate.
Once again:
“The issue is not whether he knew about it. The issue is whether he should have known about it, and he should have. If it were to go to trial he would lose on that issue. But it wouldn’t go to trial anyone. He would wind up paying a fine and damages if the patent owners pushed it.”
Anyone who searches out SnapDragon wood with the intention of grafting it either does know it’s patented or should know it’s patented. No average Joe Gardener searches dozens of web sites trying to find a recently introduced fruit tree without running into at least one article that mentions that it’s patented. Almost every recently introduced fruit with a heavy marketing campaign is patented anyway. And patent fees should always be listed separately by a nursery so the buyer always knows if the fee has been paid.
This has nothing to do with state law. This is controlled by federal law.
And yes, some patent owners will track people down and sue them because it’s not about the money they lost to one buyer. It’s about giving buyers warnings and shutting down nurseries.
.
I’m bowing out. Other people carry the apple, so I don’t know how the consumer would know the nursery was not licensed to sell it. I’m not saying your wrong, I’m saying it’s not right morally. Sounds like anyone you hate, just send them some snapdragon and call the cops. That’s over stated, but think of all the people that bought that. Most of those people had no clue of the apples situation, it just sounded like a good apple. They had no idea they had to run a background check on the company and the apple. If you can be convicted without any ill intent to break the law we have a problem in this country.
Anyone that disagrees is getting snapdragon in the mail.
I am interested in what the license fees and royalties are for home growers. Usually for most apples similar to Snapdragon the fees are structured for large scale growers. Are you saying I could actually buy a snapdragon tree by paying the royalty fee since I wouldn’t actually sell the apples? Your website doesn’t include a schedule for fees and royalties.