Fish: Re: [tropical fish club] Breeding glofish

Ray, I still see one problem with your way around the patents because it says it's also illegal to barter or trade them, too. I would think that applies if they are being "given away free" to anyone and the rules of the patents would still apply. If this were just a single patent there might be a loophole to get through but they seem to have covered all possibilities with their multiple patents.

It makes me angry that Segrest Farms is profiting from these patents at the same time, which is likely why the fish were released to the aquarium hobby. Most pet stores around here order fish from Segrest Farms regularly since they are one of the biggest fish wholesalers in the country. The whole thing is just wrong.

I was already adamant I wouldn't keep those fish because they are are altered in such a way... I refuse to give into that kind of hype... but knowing all of this means I will never reconsider owning them. I still prefer my fish to be natural in all cases with the exception of the goldfish... and even those are not high on my list of fish to own for various reasons, that being one of them. I continue to take in rescue goldfish if/when needed, but I won't spend money to purchase them. Mixed breeding is very different from genetically altered. :-(

Dawn

Dawn Moneyhan
Aquatics Specialist/Nutritionist
To learn more about me go to
http://www.helium.com/users/449334

--- On Wed, 2/6/13, sevenspringss@wmconnect.com sevenspringss@wmconnect.com> wrote:

From: sevenspringss@wmconnect.com sevenspringss@wmconnect.com>
Subject: Re: [tropical fish club] Breeding glofish
To: tropicalfishclub@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 6, 2013, 5:26 AM

Yes, it's really nuts that such fish are even in the aquarium trade, as it

exposes the unsuspecting hobbyists to lawsuits if they sell any of these

fish that they happen to raise. After all, who would expect that an aquarium

fish, sold in most any fish store we would go into, to have a registered

patent on it.

If the developer (Yorktown Technologies) didn't want these fish to be

reproduced and sold, they should never have released these fish to the aquarium

trade. They should have restricted them solely for the purpose for which

they were developed -- to determine levels of water pollution in waterways.

That they're now commonly available as an aquarium fish -- due directly to

poor control by Yorktown Technologies -- it would seem that they're at least

partially responsible for any GloFish now being reproduced, as so should

bear any responsibility for these fish's continuation by hobbyists.

Just suppose that a hobbyist has GloFish and one other unrelated species

(perhaps a Tetra) in their aquarium, and that the GloFish breed without being

observed to do so by the hobbyists, and without the intent or purposes of

the hobbyist. I might assume that any GloFish eggs should be destroyed so as

not to become illegal, but if the hobbyist doesn't know which species

spawned, it's resonsible to assume that they'll raise these fish at least to a

point where their identity becomes apparent. Is the hobbyist then expected to

destroy these fish at that point, once it's seen that they're GloFish? It

wouldn't seem fair, when their was no intent of breeding them, and when

Yorktown Tech allowed this to happen when they released their fish for sale.

After all -- what else should Yorktown have expected when they acted so

irrational; any fault should lie with them.

Ray

P.S.: Of course, there are ways around the patent issue in dissallowing

the fish's sales -- just as there are with any other fishes that are legally

not allowed to be sold. With the agreement of both parties, only the other

contents of the fish bags are being sold, including any plants or snails and

the fish are "given free," with the fee (for the plants or snail) that of

course covers the fish's value.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]