Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

worldsensorium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 371 posts

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#21

Post by pard68 »

traverseda wrote: post #17
boomboomsubban wrote: post #3

Do plants engineered to not produce plantable seeds have some kind of advantage, or is it purely so the seed producers can continue selling the seeds? I remember when I first heard of roundup ready crops as a child, that aspect of it completely baffled me both in why and how they would make plants not replantable.

Lots of "normal" plants don't produce usable seeds. Basically every apple you've ever had will produce a crab apple tree when planted, if you want to copy that tree you need to take a cutting and propogate that. I suspect that these engineered plants don't have some specific "don't produce seeds" gene added in, they're just hybrids like a liger or a mule.

Not quite how apples work and planting an apple seed won't make a "crab apple" -- that is a distinct species of tree. Getting a crab apple from a seed from a store bought apple fruit is the same as planting corn and getting rye.

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#22

Post by tptacek »

luoc wrote: post #20

I remember, there was a case where a farmer grew patented plants on his field. They spread to his neighbours field who then got sued by the patent holding company for not licensing that plant. My memory is a bit fuzzy here but you get the idea. Now, how about reversing that? Think of a GPL-like licensed plant that makes all derived plants also inheriting that license. Legally poisoning the binary distribution format…

No, he got sued by the patent holding company for using those seeds and then spraying them with Roundup, which would have killed off his crop had they not been the patented seeds. This is true of all the cases of people being sued for cultivating "Roundup-Ready" crops: the story they want to tell is that they were sued for cultivating seeds that accidentally wound up on their fields, but the facts established at trial were that, however the seeds ended up there, the farmers deliberately exploited the patented system.

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#23

Post by luoc »

luoc wrote: post #20

I remember, there was a case where a farmer grew patented plants on his field. They spread to his neighbours field who then got sued by the patent holding company for not licensing that plant. My memory is a bit fuzzy here but you get the idea. Now, how about reversing that? Think of a GPL-like licensed plant that makes all derived plants also inheriting that license. Legally poisoning the binary distribution format…

Industry's response, of course, will be plants that epigenetically load proprietary genetic material at runtime...

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#25

Post by luoc »

tptacek wrote: post #22
luoc wrote: post #20

I remember, there was a case where a farmer grew patented plants on his field. They spread to his neighbours field who then got sued by the patent holding company for not licensing that plant. My memory is a bit fuzzy here but you get the idea. Now, how about reversing that? Think of a GPL-like licensed plant that makes all derived plants also inheriting that license. Legally poisoning the binary distribution format…

No, he got sued by the patent holding company for using those seeds and then spraying them with Roundup , which would have killed off his crop had they not been the patented seeds. This is true of all the cases of people being sued for cultivating "Roundup-Ready" crops: the story they want to tell is that they were sued for cultivating seeds that accidentally wound up on their fields, but the facts established at tri…

Thanks for the insight! Saw this in a documentary and it's been a while...

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#26

Post by AnimalMuppet »

tptacek wrote: post #22
luoc wrote: post #20

I remember, there was a case where a farmer grew patented plants on his field. They spread to his neighbours field who then got sued by the patent holding company for not licensing that plant. My memory is a bit fuzzy here but you get the idea. Now, how about reversing that? Think of a GPL-like licensed plant that makes all derived plants also inheriting that license. Legally poisoning the binary distribution format…

No, he got sued by the patent holding company for using those seeds and then spraying them with Roundup , which would have killed off his crop had they not been the patented seeds. This is true of all the cases of people being sued for cultivating "Roundup-Ready" crops: the story they want to tell is that they were sued for cultivating seeds that accidentally wound up on their fields, but the facts established at tri…

Yeah, the courts aren't always friendly to clever "hacks" on the legal system. Intent matters, and facts can show intent.

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#27

Post by richbell »

luoc wrote: post #20

I remember, there was a case where a farmer grew patented plants on his field. They spread to his neighbours field who then got sued by the patent holding company for not licensing that plant. My memory is a bit fuzzy here but you get the idea. Now, how about reversing that? Think of a GPL-like licensed plant that makes all derived plants also inheriting that license. Legally poisoning the binary distribution format…

> I remember, there was a case where a farmer grew patented plants on his field. They spread to his neighbours field who then got sued by the patent holding company for not licensing that plant. My memory is a bit fuzzy here but you get the idea.

You are thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise.... He is often heralded by anti-GMO activists as an example of the dangers of GMOs and Monsanto, but the fact of the matter is that the "cross contamination" is a myth. He deliberately took cultivars from his neighbour's plot and analysis showed that they comprised a significant portion of his crops, which wouldn't be possible by cross-pollination alone.

Should seeds be patented? Are Bayer, Monsanto, Syngenta, and agrochemicals companies evil? These are all worth discussing (the answer to the second question is yes), but that particular myth is not.

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#28

Post by cnity »

tptacek wrote: post #22
luoc wrote: post #20

I remember, there was a case where a farmer grew patented plants on his field. They spread to his neighbours field who then got sued by the patent holding company for not licensing that plant. My memory is a bit fuzzy here but you get the idea. Now, how about reversing that? Think of a GPL-like licensed plant that makes all derived plants also inheriting that license. Legally poisoning the binary distribution format…

No, he got sued by the patent holding company for using those seeds and then spraying them with Roundup , which would have killed off his crop had they not been the patented seeds. This is true of all the cases of people being sued for cultivating "Roundup-Ready" crops: the story they want to tell is that they were sued for cultivating seeds that accidentally wound up on their fields, but the facts established at tri…

God forbid the farmers benefit for free in some way from the unpredictable and uncontrollable pollination of a plant genetically engineered to be a highly successful cultivar.

I'm not attacking you here, but the logic decided by the courts may be lawful but it is not moral (in my opinion). It's as if a noisy neighbour hosts a late night party and you happen to enjoy the music. The neighbour notices and decides to charge you for the streaming fee.

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#29

Post by kwhitefoot »

traverseda wrote: post #17
boomboomsubban wrote: post #3

Do plants engineered to not produce plantable seeds have some kind of advantage, or is it purely so the seed producers can continue selling the seeds? I remember when I first heard of roundup ready crops as a child, that aspect of it completely baffled me both in why and how they would make plants not replantable.

Lots of "normal" plants don't produce usable seeds. Basically every apple you've ever had will produce a crab apple tree when planted, if you want to copy that tree you need to take a cutting and propogate that. I suspect that these engineered plants don't have some specific "don't produce seeds" gene added in, they're just hybrids like a liger or a mule.

They are hybrids but unlike mules they are generally fertile whereas mules are frequently infertile. But the second generation produces a range of types with varying growth rates, ripening times, yields, etc.; so it is not really useful to propagate them.

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#30

Post by luoc »

richbell wrote: post #27
luoc wrote: post #20

I remember, there was a case where a farmer grew patented plants on his field. They spread to his neighbours field who then got sued by the patent holding company for not licensing that plant. My memory is a bit fuzzy here but you get the idea. Now, how about reversing that? Think of a GPL-like licensed plant that makes all derived plants also inheriting that license. Legally poisoning the binary distribution format…

> I remember, there was a case where a farmer grew patented plants on his field. They spread to his neighbours field who then got sued by the patent holding company for not licensing that plant. My memory is a bit fuzzy here but you get the idea. You are thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise... . He is often heralded by anti-GMO activists as an example of the dangers of GMOs and Mon…

Thanks for the link :)
Post reply on HN