growing yeast for sale

[boingy]

Regardless of the true legality or otherwise of it, the fact is that if you start doing it and the originator of the yeast takes a dim view then you'd probably be faced with the choice of either "ceasing and desisting" or taking on a potentially expensive legal battle.

[McMullan]

Regardless of the true legality or otherwise of it, the fact is that if you start doing it and the originator of the yeast takes a dim view then you'd probably be faced with the choice of either "ceasing and desisting" or taking on a potentially expensive legal battle.

You can't claim exclusive rights over a product of nature. Therefore, the 'originator' has no case to initiate a legal battle.

[JamesF]

You can't claim exclusive rights over a product of nature. Therefore, the 'originator' has no case to initiate a legal battle.

The breeder of a new variety of plant (which may have been bred through normal propagation methods -- this is not just a GM thing) may claim exclusive rights over propagation and harvested fruit/seeds etc. as long as the new variety meets specific criteria. Depending on whether fungi count as plants in the definition applied by the controlling body/bodies, this could potentially extend to yeast.

In what sense would you consider that inconsistent with claiming rights over a product of nature?

James

[McMullan]

'The breeder of a new variety of plant' created something by intervening. The variety did not evolve naturally by itself.

If you could find a list of claims to exclusive rights for brewers yeasts, I'd be interested.

[Aleman]

you can't patent or copyright a living organism.

Actually you can, and that is one of my arguments against GMO. Harrington Malt is grown under license for ABInbev, any farmer not licensed growing it, or one that is that offers it for sale to anyone other than AB, will be subject to prosecution . . . as an example. The GM companies are producing sterile patented varieties of crops tthat you have to go back to them to buy as you won't be able to reuse any seed.

Unless the world has gone bonkers

Yeah, it has

Brewlab for example hold many (>3000 IIRC) strains of 'brewers yeast' and an awful lot of them they are not allowed to make available for sale due to 'protection' issues. This is one reason why whitelabs wyeast et al do not label their products with the specific brewery source. Anyone is entitled to make a guess as to where they came from, but that is all it is a guess not a definitive answer.

[JamesF]

'The breeder of a new variety of plant' created something by intervening. The variety did not evolve naturally by itself.

"Intervening" is a very tricksy word though. We could start at me planting two different varieties of plant in a field. At some point they get cross-pollinated and from the seed a new variety grows. There's a whole continuum of possibilities there, at the other end of which is me growing the same two plants in a lab under controlled conditions and using a paintbrush instead of relying on a honey bee.

At what point have I "intervened"? Perhaps even at the point of planting them next to each other when they may not normally have been expected to grow as neighbours? Your definition, my definition and the legal definition for the purpose of determining new plant varieties may not be the same.

If you could find a list of claims to exclusive rights for brewers yeasts, I'd be interested.

I'm not aware of one. My argument is merely for the possibility that it could happen. White Labs for instance claim to "develop" yeast. Sounds like human intervention. If they selectively breed yeast to ferment with certain characteristics different from the parent population that sounds not very different at all from selectively breeding a rose to be a specific colour or to have a specific perfume when a breeder might well be able to claim exclusive rights.

On a related note that is specific to our hobby, I believe (though I am not absolutely certain) that exactly these rights are claimed for hop varieties such as Amarillo and Citra, which are the products of normal plant breeding practices (eg. cross pollination, selective breeding; not GM).

James

[McMullan]

you can't patent or copyright a living organism.

Actually you can, and that is one of my arguments against GMO. Harrington Malt is grown under license for ABInbev, any farmer not licensed growing it, or one that is that offers it for sale to anyone other than AB, will be subject to prosecution . . . as an example. The GM companies are producing sterile patented varieties of crops tthat you have to go back to them to buy as you won't be able to reuse any seed.

Unless the world has gone bonkers

Yeah, it has

Brewlab for example hold many (>3000 IIRC) strains of 'brewers yeast' and an awful lot of them they are not allowed to make available for sale due to 'protection' issues. This is one reason why whitelabs wyeast et al do not label their products with the specific brewery source. Anyone is entitled to make a guess as to where they came from, but that is all it is a guess not a definitive answer.

I thought the phrase had been updated to ‘no one has sole rights over an organism that evolved naturally’? There is no legal case for it. If ABInbev developed a malt and registered it, they have a legal case, I guess. GMOs are patentable, because they were created by genetic modifications, they didn’t evolve naturally. And, yes, there are yeast banks that will offer to ‘protect’ strains as part of their service. But I haven't heard of any attempt to claim exclusive rights over a brewers yeast strain. It would cost more than it’s worth to demonstrate that something in your brewery or methodology over the years had selected for the unique characteristics of ‘your’ yeast strain. It would be a massive undertaking costing billions. It would put your brewery out of business. It would be bonkers!

[boingy]

Yeah, the point is that even if there is not a 100% clear cut case in law, the threat of legal action is enough to stop most people.
Ignore those lawyers "cease" letters and, guess what, suddenly you are involved in a court case next month. Oh, and by the way, it's in California. If you turn up, they'll apply for a postponement. If you are tenacious enough and can spare the time you might win the case eventually. But if you lose, you lose big. They'll apply for astonishingly high costs and damages and get awarded some of them. It's not fair, but that's how it works. <shrug>

So the only safe way is to get an agreement in writing before you start. I imagine they will be unhappy with the concept of changing the name.

[YeastWhisperer]

Actually you can, and that is one of my arguments against GMO. Harrington Malt is grown under license for ABInbev, any farmer not licensed growing it, or one that is that offers it for sale to anyone other than AB, will be subject to prosecution . . . as an example.

Harrington is not owned by ABInbev. The cultivar was developed over thirty years ago at the Crop Development Center at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. Harrington was as common as dirt in the United States in the nineties. It has been replaced for the most part by Metcalfe.

[YeastWhisperer]

All of the yeast strains that White Labs offers commercially are not intellectual property. What is considered intellectual property is the name of the breweries from which they were originally obtained. That's why Whites Labs uses the name WLP022 Essex Ale and not WLP022 Ridley's Ale. By naming the culture WLP022 Essex Ale, White Labs side steps a trademark infringement tort.

By the way, many of the proprietary hop cultivars are protected by trademark law, not patent law. For example, Citra is a registered trademark.

[CestrIan]

All of the yeast strains that White Labs offers commercially are not intellectual property. What is considered intellectual property is the name of the breweries from which they were originally obtained. That's why Whites Labs uses the name WLP022 Essex Ale and not WLP022 Ridley's Ale. By naming the culture WLP022 Essex Ale, White Labs side steps a trademark infringement tort.

By the way, many of the proprietary hop cultivars are protected by trademark law, not patent law. For example, Citra is a registered trademark.

Makes sense. The yeast varieties belonged to the breweries originally. Also Wyeast and White Labs sell very similar yeasts, for instance WLP013 London Ale Yeast and 1028 London Ale Yeast. Why aren't they suing each other, if either of them had ownership of the intellectual rights to the yeast. These are the same yeast - Worthingtons White Shield. Surely Worhtingtons should be suing them both if anything.

I think it would be very difficult to prove whether a new yeast on the market came from Wyeast or White Labs or the original brewery.

[McMullan]

Go for it. There is nothing wrong with doing it. Just make your own yeast names Even the biggest commercials wouldn't waste the cost of exclusive rights on a yeast strain. It's possible, but would cost them £billions to do it. It's simply not worth it to them from a business point of view. Local yeast suppliers are the way to go