>Hugh Lovel wrote: Snip - To me the best thing that has happened to >Steiner's work >is that Demeter (Anne Mendenhall) has said "We own the term biodynamic and we >control its use." Now if you want to really use Steiner's ideas in freedom you >have to go beyond the term biodynamic. > >I do not understand under which Legal System, Demeter or anyone else can claim >ownership of either the name or the concept. > >Once something has been put in the public domain (published) it is not >able to be >Patented. > >Even if something is Patented, an individual can make one for one's own >use, but >not to sell the actual item, but I believe one can use one's own replica >to make >something else and sell that. Example: you access the Patent of a device >to cut >holes in reinforced concrete and make your copy of the device, you can use >that s >part of your business, but not sell the actual device. > >I do not believe Demeter can claim any contribution to the intellectual >property. >I do not think that RS claimed that anything he offered was uniquely his >original >work. I understand that in the "Agricultural Lectures", he was >reintroducing old >customs, that had been lost through changing practises and offering some >explanation as to how they may function, as he encouraged us to innovate. > >Gil
Dear Gil, No doubt if anyone has the money to fight Demeter their trademark will be canceled. It was awfully wrong for them to proceed on that path. But I made that as plain as I could to them and they pig-headedly went for it anyway. What I realized was that even if they backtrack and apologise to everyone I'm not comfortable with calling myself biodynamic if it means I become associated with the kind of behavior Demeter has shown. I don't want to be branded with the nomenclature of a stuck-up insular cult. Best, Hugh
