Muhammad Abdullah, Folio3 Agtech

Muhammad Abdullah, Folio3 Agtech

The Hidden Margin Leak Between Projected and Actual Harvest Dates

Thomas Skernivitz

Thomas Skernivitz

Biofertilizers 101: What Fruit Growers Need To Know

Anthony P. Keinath

Anthony P. Keinath

Powdery Mildew: A Crop Protection Problem That Needs Attention

Carol Miller

Carol Miller

Video: Why Viral Resistance Is the Next Big Hurdle in Melon Breeding

Lawsuit Filed Over SweeTango

Growing Produce Staff By Growing Produce Staff|June 22, 2010

Last week, a group of apple growers in Minnesota filed a lawsuit against the University of Minnesota, alleging that an exclusive licensing agreement between the university and Pepin Heights Orchard for SweeTango is in violation of public policy, Minnesota Public Radio reports.

“The exclusive license agreement eviscerated any right to sell and distribute SweeTango directly to wholesalers, which is an essential revenue outlet for Minnesota apple growers and the Minnesota apple industry,” the lawsuit alleges.

University of Minnesota officials are reviewing the lawsuit and declined to comment, but university spokesman Dan Wolter says the licensing agreement’s goal is to protect the variety’s quality while maximizing revenues. “We’re doing it in a different way, and for us, that’s part of the new financial reality of funding research,” said Wolter. “I think we also have an obligation to taxpayers to ensure that the quality of the SweeTango line is protected and preserved so it continues to be a solid revenue-producing apple.”

To read the full Minnesota Public Radio story, click here.

For an update on the case as of December 2010, click here.

0

Leave a Reply

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
September 27, 2011 at 1:48 am

About time someone did something and go after these so called clubs or exclusive distributors.
Public money funded so public (GROWERS) are entitled to it. In no way should there be any exclusives.
Who best to promote apples or other products, but small Growers.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
September 27, 2011 at 1:48 am

Dan Wolter’s comments are absurb. Is he saying that only the few growers licensed can grow good fruit and the remaining thousands can not? Who appointed him king? I think he and the university forgot the U.S.taxpayers dollars that funded the univesity and development meant research for all, not a chosen few. This idea smells like Wall Street, use everybodies money for the economical enhancement of a very few.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
September 27, 2011 at 1:48 am

The problem is just what Wolter refers to, “…the new financial reality of funding research.” We, the public, have decided to starve our universities of tax dollars because, God forbid, we should have to pay anything but the bare minimum for taxes. The grim reality is that a very small percentage of state university funding, nowadays, comes from the state. Thus the huge tuition increases of the last couple decades. And thus the need to enter into business agreements for profit rather than the public good. If you don’t like that, then pony up by being willing to pay higher taxes.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
September 27, 2011 at 1:48 am

The bottom line is that the Peppin Heights group did not contract the University to develop Sweet Tango, nor did they fund the research 100% by themselves. Public monies and donated research monies helped with the development. The line has become a bit blurred these days. By limiting the ability of all to participate in this variety it ultimatly limits the potenntial income to the University.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
September 27, 2011 at 1:48 am

So,let’s see if I understand Mr.Wolter’s position-by limiting and minimizing the number of trees distributed, the University maximizes income?Wolter is right;I don’t comprehend “the new financial reality”.It appears to be double-speak,intended to excuse cronyism.By excluding almost all fruit growers from producing this fruit,Wolter is dismissing the rest of us as incompetent,and unfit to grow fruit.Keep your SweeTango.Just show me the criteria used to select those lucky few.From a publicly funded institution,this is unacceptable.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
September 27, 2011 at 1:48 am

These Universities think they have the rights to apples but what about the Federal dollars that are in the programs WA 1 is the same they say Washington growers only and even then you can’t get it. We are all paying for this research and we should all benefit from it. I also think the small u- pick peolple are the best for getting the new varieties out to the public.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
September 27, 2011 at 1:48 am

Funny that some of the growers who are suing the University and Pepin are the same companies who attempted to purchase the rights of MN1914, but lost in the proposal process. They sound like sore losers to me. The goal of the University is to maximize revenue to the University, not give equal access to growers in MN. Ask the giant seed companies about buying university seed IP. Welcome to the modern world. This will be a fun case to watch.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
September 27, 2011 at 1:48 am

Funny that some of the growers who are suing the University and Pepin are the same companies who attempted to purchase the rights of MN1914, but lost in the proposal process. They sound like sore losers to me. The goal of the University is to maximize revenue to the University, not give equal access to growers in MN. Ask the giant seed companies about buying university seed IP. Welcome to the modern world. This will be a fun case to watch.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
September 27, 2011 at 1:48 am

Having been a grower, a nurseryman, and now and extension worker and researcher for 44 years I can see both sides of the issue. Unfortunately the taxes paid by farmers are not being used for agricultural research, but many more politically popular programs. The adminstrations and workers of ag universities, research and extension need to find dollars elsewhere or lose programs badly needed by farmers. The middle ground would be to license organizations that sell to all groups with no restrictions. Much more could be discussed.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
September 27, 2011 at 1:48 am

This is exactly what I have been talking about. Publicly funded schools and their research facilities should not be entering into agreements with private groups for exclusive rights to these new apple varieties. If the institution was private and did not take govt (tax payer) money then fine. Now someone needs to sue Cornell and the New York Apple Association for the same reason. I am pro capitalism but this is favoritism.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
September 27, 2011 at 1:48 am

Having seen very bad quality Honeycrisp being sold, and having customers not want to buy MY Honeycrisp, because they have had poorly grown apples elsewhere, the idea of having standards that the apples have to pass to be sold is a good idea, and will help sell more apples. Honeycrisp as a brand has suffered because of bad apples being sold as “Honeycrisp”. MN1914 apples are only sold as SweeTango after they grade high enough, and it is a good idea to protect the name, if not implemented very well.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
December 22, 2011 at 4:05 am

About time someone did something and go after these so called clubs or exclusive distributors.
Public money funded so public (GROWERS) are entitled to it. In no way should there be any exclusives.
Who best to promote apples or other products, but small Growers.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
December 22, 2011 at 4:05 am

Dan Wolter’s comments are absurb. Is he saying that only the few growers licensed can grow good fruit and the remaining thousands can not? Who appointed him king? I think he and the university forgot the U.S.taxpayers dollars that funded the univesity and development meant research for all, not a chosen few. This idea smells like Wall Street, use everybodies money for the economical enhancement of a very few.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
December 22, 2011 at 4:05 am

The problem is just what Wolter refers to, “…the new financial reality of funding research.” We, the public, have decided to starve our universities of tax dollars because, God forbid, we should have to pay anything but the bare minimum for taxes. The grim reality is that a very small percentage of state university funding, nowadays, comes from the state. Thus the huge tuition increases of the last couple decades. And thus the need to enter into business agreements for profit rather than the public good. If you don’t like that, then pony up by being willing to pay higher taxes.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
December 22, 2011 at 4:05 am

The bottom line is that the Peppin Heights group did not contract the University to develop Sweet Tango, nor did they fund the research 100% by themselves. Public monies and donated research monies helped with the development. The line has become a bit blurred these days. By limiting the ability of all to participate in this variety it ultimatly limits the potenntial income to the University.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
December 22, 2011 at 4:05 am

So,let’s see if I understand Mr.Wolter’s position-by limiting and minimizing the number of trees distributed, the University maximizes income?Wolter is right;I don’t comprehend “the new financial reality”.It appears to be double-speak,intended to excuse cronyism.By excluding almost all fruit growers from producing this fruit,Wolter is dismissing the rest of us as incompetent,and unfit to grow fruit.Keep your SweeTango.Just show me the criteria used to select those lucky few.From a publicly funded institution,this is unacceptable.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
December 22, 2011 at 4:05 am

These Universities think they have the rights to apples but what about the Federal dollars that are in the programs WA 1 is the same they say Washington growers only and even then you can’t get it. We are all paying for this research and we should all benefit from it. I also think the small u- pick peolple are the best for getting the new varieties out to the public.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
December 22, 2011 at 4:05 am

Funny that some of the growers who are suing the University and Pepin are the same companies who attempted to purchase the rights of MN1914, but lost in the proposal process. They sound like sore losers to me. The goal of the University is to maximize revenue to the University, not give equal access to growers in MN. Ask the giant seed companies about buying university seed IP. Welcome to the modern world. This will be a fun case to watch.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
December 22, 2011 at 4:05 am

Funny that some of the growers who are suing the University and Pepin are the same companies who attempted to purchase the rights of MN1914, but lost in the proposal process. They sound like sore losers to me. The goal of the University is to maximize revenue to the University, not give equal access to growers in MN. Ask the giant seed companies about buying university seed IP. Welcome to the modern world. This will be a fun case to watch.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
December 22, 2011 at 4:05 am

Having been a grower, a nurseryman, and now and extension worker and researcher for 44 years I can see both sides of the issue. Unfortunately the taxes paid by farmers are not being used for agricultural research, but many more politically popular programs. The adminstrations and workers of ag universities, research and extension need to find dollars elsewhere or lose programs badly needed by farmers. The middle ground would be to license organizations that sell to all groups with no restrictions. Much more could be discussed.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
December 22, 2011 at 4:05 am

This is exactly what I have been talking about. Publicly funded schools and their research facilities should not be entering into agreements with private groups for exclusive rights to these new apple varieties. If the institution was private and did not take govt (tax payer) money then fine. Now someone needs to sue Cornell and the New York Apple Association for the same reason. I am pro capitalism but this is favoritism.

Reply
Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:
December 22, 2011 at 4:05 am

Having seen very bad quality Honeycrisp being sold, and having customers not want to buy MY Honeycrisp, because they have had poorly grown apples elsewhere, the idea of having standards that the apples have to pass to be sold is a good idea, and will help sell more apples. Honeycrisp as a brand has suffered because of bad apples being sold as “Honeycrisp”. MN1914 apples are only sold as SweeTango after they grade high enough, and it is a good idea to protect the name, if not implemented very well.

Reply

Related posts