Talk:Plant breeders' rights

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horticulture and Gardening Mid‑importance

	Gardening portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Analiese Batchelor. Peer reviewers: Nataliereid, Vconstant.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Litigation

The article stated that there was "much" litigation about the overlap between patents and plant breeders' rights. The article referenced, however, only cited three cases, and the "much" has been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.57.44 (talk • contribs)

Rio Convention and ITPGRFA

This section has nothing to do with plant breeders' rights and contains several factual errors. For example, the "non-binding International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources" was replaced by the binding International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture over five years ago. The ITPGRFA repudiated the fundamental theme of the International Undertaking, which was that plant genetic resources were the common heritage of mankind, and replaced it with a system of national government ownership of all plant genetic resources. This section should be considered for placement in a separate article on the Rio Convention on Biodiversity or simply deleted from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.57.44 (talk • contribs)

Roundup

A lot of the factual errors in this section have been corrected; they suggest that the original author is not a farmer and has never seen an actual Technology Use Agreement from Monsanto, copies of which are available from any seed dealer who sells Roundup-Ready seed.

However, this section has nothing to do with Plant Breeders' Rights and should be considered for deletion from this article. 83.79.57.44 (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of off-topic material

The material on the Rio Convention, the International Undertaking and Roundup has been deleted. 85.1.177.41 (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long?

It seems like this article is likely to draw in people wondering how many years they will be protected for, someone less lazy than me should do that --216.67.63.13 (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Paragraph added - also something about examination. Twr57 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed

File:Plant Breeders Rights.gif

Plant Breeders Rights

I've removed this image from the page because it describes the application process in a particular bureacracy. It looks as if it is derived from a document at url "www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/RTF_Plant_Breeders_Rights_Guide.rtf", which is on wikipedia's blacklist so I can't link to it from here (page 21). There is a heading "Stages in processing an average application for PBR in Australia". In other words, the flowchart might describe a typical process in Australia, but might not be applicable elsewhere or in some special cases, and I don't think it belongs in this general discussion (at least not without an explanation of exactly what the image applies to). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]