Most people support patents because they have this romanticized notion of some little guy in his garage inventing the next light bulb. That’s not representative of the mass offensive and defensive patterns of use by modern corporations. We should just end patents, period.
I think the elephant in the room is that China will readily ignore any patents and produce competing products anyway. it's really tough to make money off of hardware when you are immediately undercut by the people you contract out to manufacture your product.
Cool and all, but there's not a single mention of "hybrid" on the entire page, which means that this is not targeted at the majority of, say, US agriculture. The general public does not understand agriculture well, and I've noticed that this misunderstanding is stronger among those that have huge huge concerns about seeds and GMOs. Hybridization is a huge benefit, one of the primary reasons to use seeds from somebody…
> returned from ag use for ecological restoration. We don’t really do that. If anything, the opposite now that the land yields more value. Largely we just use the excess to feed animals (ie: 90% energy loss) or ethanol/biodiesel (ie: using land as a 2-3% efficient solar panel, along with lots of inputs). Something like 75% of US corn goes into the above 2.
We do that, and actually pay farmers to keep land fallow in some cases.
We must have this high leve of productivity before it's even a possibility, but once it's a possibility we can expand its use.
The current economic system is changeable, one ag technology allows us to.
So what? I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want on my field as long as I don't use pesticides or processing that has been banned by law, without anyone being allowed to sue me for that.
As a farmer with experience growing roundup-ready crops: In order to obtain roundup-ready seeds you have to sign a contract with the vender. In said agreement, you agree to not do such things. If you want to do whatever you want with your field, don't enter into contractual agreements where you agree to follow certain rules.
In the case being discussed, the neighboring farmer had not signed any agreement with the vendor.
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…
What is a farmer to do when mother nature infects his crop, against his will, with pollen from the GMO crop? I think the lawsuit should go the other way. Monsanto should pay for destroying the ability to grow heirloom seeds without getting infected. They want to keep it protected? Then require it to be grown in quarantine.
All the farmer had to do was not apply roundup to his crop when he hadn't planted the roundup resistant seeds.
As a farmer with experience growing roundup-ready crops: In order to obtain roundup-ready seeds you have to sign a contract with the vender. In said agreement, you agree to not do such things. If you want to do whatever you want with your field, don't enter into contractual agreements where you agree to follow certain rules.
In the case being discussed, the neighboring farmer had not signed any agreement with the vendor.
What is a farmer to do when mother nature infects his crop, against his will, with pollen from the GMO crop? I think the lawsuit should go the other way. Monsanto should pay for destroying the ability to grow heirloom seeds without getting infected. They want to keep it protected? Then require it to be grown in quarantine.
All the farmer had to do was not apply roundup to his crop when he hadn't planted the roundup resistant seeds.
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that his crop is being pollinated against his will, and why should he lose the freedom to spray something on his crop because his neighbor planted a certain seed? Why does it have to infect everyone like a virus?
Most people support patents because they have this romanticized notion of some little guy in his garage inventing the next light bulb. That’s not representative of the mass offensive and defensive patterns of use by modern corporations. We should just end patents, period.
I think the elephant in the room is that China will readily ignore any patents and produce competing products anyway. it's really tough to make money off of hardware when you are immediately undercut by the people you contract out to manufacture your product.
The other elephant in the room is that almost every other country has done the same. Examples : Germany, US and now China. Great powers are built on imitation, then innovation.
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 cha…
This argument is completely orthogonal to the narrative originally presented, which is that farmers who weren't trying to benefit from the patents at all were tangled up in Monsanto lawsuits. That narrative is false, and that's all I'm here to correct. There's a Motte and Bailey thing that happens with these discussions, the bailey being "Monsanto will sue you even if their seeds just happen to blow onto your property" and the motte being "intellectual property isn't real".
Most people support patents because they have this romanticized notion of some little guy in his garage inventing the next light bulb. That’s not representative of the mass offensive and defensive patterns of use by modern corporations. We should just end patents, period.
Or patents should be assigned to individuals and not companies.
Most people support patents because they have this romanticized notion of some little guy in his garage inventing the next light bulb. That’s not representative of the mass offensive and defensive patterns of use by modern corporations. We should just end patents, period.
Patented seeds have funded GMO research which has saved literally hundreds of millions if not billions of lives through famine reduction. Yes it sucks for farmers, but I can't see how it has been anything other than absolute boon for humanity.
> Patented seeds have funded GMO research which has saved literally hundreds of millions if not billions of lives through famine reduction.
Sources? References? Sounds like PR bullshit from Syngenta, frankly. For a start, half the world population is living off subsistence agriculture, i.e. not patented nor GMO seeds.