Thank you Christophe for this little morning regulatory watch.
I agree with you in principle, the important thing is to ensure an easy recipe that does not limit the resource.
If I agree with the remuneration of "artists" who have worked for a long time to select a seed, I do not agree that these seeds are "terminator" plants or that there is a total ban on reusing seeds. .
We are indeed gradually moving towards a serious decline in the genetic variety of plans cultivated for food, it is a whole part of our agricultural and culinary culture that is disappearing (some children only know the granny and golden apples, we would have to wake up !), and this can only continue if 99% of French agricultural production is subject to a ban on "individual reproduction".
A low but constant tax like that proposed by Christophe seems to be a good compromise. It would allow any farmer wishing to sell a production under a protected species name to pay a tax paying the seed companies.
Architect, I am also in defense of the right to intellectual property, but in essence, our profession, like yours, is based on the selection of pre-existing entities belonging to the common good. Thus, to prohibit the reproduction of houses with two sides of roofs on the pretext that it has been patented, is in my opinion a moral crime. By cons prohibiting the sale of strictly identical copies can be understood. The same should be true for plant species!
Furthermore, did you know that if architects applied their
right to intellectual property, you could no longer take souvenir photos to post on Facebook in front of many buildings!