12 



As I mentioned earlier, this is mainly a question for resolution 

 within the plant breeding community, and the plant breeding com- 

 munity has worked out a proposed solution which, as I said, is at- 

 tached to my formal presentation. 2 The substitute language from 

 this group outlines prospective corrective statements that would 

 address this situation. I would respectfully request that this sub- 

 committee and the full committee review this language and consid- 

 er its merits. 



May I now, Mr. Chairman, allow Mr. Rob Robinson, who is exec- 

 utive vice president of the Robinson Seed Company in Waterloo, 

 Nebraska, and also chairman of the Intellectual Property Rights 

 Committee of our American Seed Trade Association, to come to the 

 front and explain on this chart what we mean by transition. 



Senator Kerrey. Certainly. 



Mr. Schmidt. Thank you. 



Senator Kerrey. Your entire statement will be made a part of 

 the record. 



Mr. Schmidt. That is right. 



Senator Kerrey. Mr. Robinson. 



Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



This chart illustrates how ASTA's proposed transitional provi- 

 sion would influence the introduction of an essential derivation. 

 Just to describe it briefly, if you look at the vertical axis, that rep- 

 resents the implementation of the UPOV Convention, here we are 

 illustrating 1994. We have a time line on the bottom, and we have 

 three examples as to how this will influence the introduction of an 

 essential derivation. 



In each example, T represents the original or initial variety and 

 when its protection starts. P-prime represents the centrally derived 

 variety developed from P and the time at which application is 

 made for protection or in which first acts of commercialization 

 occur. 



In example number one, the initial variety, protected variety, is 

 introduced before the implementation of the UPOV Convention or 

 the effective date of the act. Also, the essentially derived variety, 

 P-prime, is introduced before the effective date. In this case, 

 ASTA's language would say that there should be no dependence be- 

 tween the essentially derived variety and the initial variety. 



In the second case, the protected variety is protected, again, 

 before the effective date of the act. The essentially derived variety 

 is introduced after the effective date of the act. In this case, we 

 would say that the essentially derived variety should be dependent 

 on the initial protected variety at the effective date of the act and 

 after, not before. 



In the third case, naturally this would represent what you see in 

 terms of the language currently proposed, where the protected va- 

 riety is introduced to the market or protected before or right at the 

 effective date of the act and the essentially derived variety comes 

 thereafter, and, of course, the essentially derived variety is depend- 

 ent on the protected variety. 



2 See ASSINSEL statement, page 18. 



