Snapdragon apple trees for sale?

General Fruit Growing
#41

Of note also, based on the threads above, is that NYAG collects the royalties in the case of NY1, not the nursery. The nursery (which must be licensed by NYAG to sell NY1 or NY2) submits a list of growers who purchased trees, which NYAG then bills for royalties. The nursery also has an obligation to check with NYAG to verify membership/eligibility prior to selling the trees.

#42

I really like Snapdragon and buy New York apples when I see them in the supermarket.

Wonder how many of those NY Apple growers are able to make a profit on Snapdragon or another NYAG variety after all the extra fees and paperwork?

#43

A couple of articles about snapdragon.

1 Like
#44

I agree, that’s an insane amount of hoops and cash. I’m betting expired varieties would end up making more money when it’s all said and done. The hot new apple thing only plays out for a moment. That’s why they have to get as much as possible in the quickest time frame.

1 Like
#45

The fundamental fiscal issue with club apples is that there are so many club apples on the market that they limit each other’s potential for profit.

3 Likes
#46

Sounds like a good racket if you can get into it.

#47

@CrunchTime
@z0r

CrunchTime-

It appears that in Mr z0r’s case your patent is not enforceable. If you look at the following:

Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. 1120 (C.C.D. Mass. 1813)

Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

There is what is called the “Common law research exemption” which allows the use for “amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry.” Mr. z0r is not in commerce. As long as he doesn’t sell apples, sell scionwood, or distribute scionwood it appears he would be in compliance with the “Common law research exemption” as far as your patent.

In addition, there are state laws that deal with patent infringement claims made in bad faith. The laws vary from state to state…Vermont’s laws are fairly strict. In general though the laws require certain things be done before and during the process of making a claim of patent infringement. I think it would be wise if you consulted a patent attorney who could explain the process and the relevant state law to you.

6 Likes
#48

What is a “one-desk club apple”?

@CrunchTime Jessica, do you know what they mean by that in the article?

#49

The “use” of a fruit tree variety is to produce fruit. Unless you were planting a tree because you really had to smell the flowers for yourself or to dream about Calculus underneath it…you’re probably “using” it.

Patents are purely federal with their basis in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. The states can carve out anything related to patents they want, but a court is going to throw it out. The Vermont law acknowledges this and mostly only attempts to cover the patent holder failing to identify themselves to the person they are demanding money from or the patent they claim is infringed or issuing an immediate demand for payment.

The only part that might apply would be “(5) The person offers to license the patent for an amount that is not based on a reasonable estimate of the value of the license.” Which in this case seems to be, “$1,000 to join our club, a standard $/tree royalty, plus hundreds more dollars every year based on how much acreage is planted,” instead of “Pay a $4.50 royalty per tree” (the highest I’ve seen listed for any patented fruit tree I’ve looked at). 200-1,000x the industry standard rate is something a lot of judges would find unreasonable.

But I’m an unreasonable person who doesn’t understand how club apples aren’t a restraint of trade and interference in interstate commerce. Or why the public funds the development of goods and are then excluded from access to them “Privatize the profits, socialize the costs” is legal. Or why “prevent[ing] people from planting just a few trees” is a legitimate goal or interest of patent law.

2 Likes
#50

Maybe the individual here is growing the tree just to smell the flowers…how would you know the individuals intent in this situation? Words like “probably” in this case are only attached to a personal opinion and have no value in the court room.

If that is the legal definition of “use of a fruit tree” then please share the documentation with us so we can all be on the same page.

1 Like
#51

I don’t think I’m your paralegal, but I’ll Google for you:
"Rights Conveyed by a Plant Patent

Grant of a plant patent precludes others from asexually reproducing, selling, offering for sale, or using the patented plant or any of its parts in the United States or importing them into the United States."

So it’s actually broader than I had assumed, per the US Patent Office. I’m so glad we’re all on the same page now.

The federal judiciary is composed, primarily, of grown-ups, who apply a “smell test” when somebody presents them with “facts.” Also, you can kind of just scroll up and read if you’re unclear on what the intended use was in this case: It was to grow the tree for its novel fruit and share cuttings once it’s off patent in a couple years. Another mystery solved.

1 Like
#52

“I’ll google for you” lol You’ve got some attitude little guy! It’s about you making claims before or without providing any evidence. Nobody is looking for assumptions and opinions without providing facts.

#53

It means only one sales organization sells the variety. In the case of Crunch Time, there are 11 sales organizations licensed to sell SnapDragon and RubyFrost apples - hence, Crunch Time not being a one-desk organization.

The articles linked above are 8 and 4 years old, a lot of progress has been made in that time in terms of growing both varieties commercially. In 2015, NY1 and NY2 plantings were at most 4 years old.

2 Likes
#54

Nothing new here but simplified version of what the growing and marketing of Snapdragon and Ruby Frost are about.
https://theproducenews.com/new-york/crunch-time-apple-growers-offers-unique-apples

1 Like