In article <f537cf9d-8c51-407c-a4c9-175d5e8b1d24
@k6g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
> Ran e at Arabian Knits > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> >
> > > If they actually are trademarked that's wrong. *Patents expire
> > > trademarks do not. *The point of patents is to give enough profit to a
> > > developer to make it worth opening the product to the public after a
> > > while. *The point of trademarks is to identify a company and its
> > > products.
> >
> > * *There's a little of both. *There are patented plants like the
> > Honeycrisp apple was (which is part of why we wouldn't buy that
> > variety), and there are actual trademarked seeds like Monsanto sells.
>
> Seeds should not be trademark-able. That's an abuse that should
> fail at the first court test. If there's some loophole that allows it
> it
> needs to be closed.

Monsanto can trademark all the seeds they want to. All someone has to
do to circumvent a trademark is to change the name. If they were
relying on trademark they'd have had their butts handed to them by the
courts a long time ago.