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

101–110 of 371 posts

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

#101

Post by emadehsan »

> The farmers saved a percentage of the seeds and sowed them again the next spring. However, this is not a lucrative model for profit-oriented multinational companies, since the seed breeders only earn a profit during the first sale and not again every year.

Was the "inability of the produced seeds to be sowed again and turn into a crop" intentionally baked into the seeds sold by these companies, purely for profits?

Or was there a genuine biological / physical limiting factor? E.g. crop will be more susceptible to pests?

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

#102

Post by wnevets »

efitz wrote: post #56

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.

Patents are still being used to protect smaller companies from much larger corporations. Allowing these large corporations to legally ignore patents will only make things worse for the rest of us.

If we need to reform patents, maybe it should be based on revenue generated. Once a company has been successfully "incentivized" for their "innovation" the patent expires sooner.

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

#103

Post by randomdata »

efitz wrote: post #56

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.

> We should just end patents, period.

In the case of seeds, they could still hide behind plant breeders' rights[1], though.

[1] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-14.6/

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

#104

Post by tarotuser »

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…

This is another case where patent law superseded physical trespass and pollution/littering laws.

Monsanto should have paid the farmer for polluting the farmer's field ALONG WITH being required to remove all Monsanto-owned plants. And if that means roundup-ing the whole field, paying for all damages treble, and then removing the living plants, so be it.

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

#105

Post by SQueeeeeL »

emadehsan wrote: post #101

> The farmers saved a percentage of the seeds and sowed them again the next spring. However, this is not a lucrative model for profit-oriented multinational companies, since the seed breeders only earn a profit during the first sale and not again every year. Was the "inability of the produced seeds to be sowed again and turn into a crop" intentionally baked into the seeds sold by these companies, purely for profits?…

>Was the "inability of the produced seeds to be sowed again and turn into a crop" intentionally baked into the seeds sold by these companies, purely for profits?

No, it's purely a contractual limitation. Farmers need to sign the rights away and performing experiments with seeds blown on your land is considered a breech of contact law (i.e. you don't even need to purchase the seeds to violate IP regulations). https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto...

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

#106

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

efitz wrote: post #56

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.

[dead]

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

#107

Post by qup »

emadehsan wrote: post #101

> The farmers saved a percentage of the seeds and sowed them again the next spring. However, this is not a lucrative model for profit-oriented multinational companies, since the seed breeders only earn a profit during the first sale and not again every year. Was the "inability of the produced seeds to be sowed again and turn into a crop" intentionally baked into the seeds sold by these companies, purely for profits?…

Legally baked-in.

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

#108

Post by quantified »

efitz wrote: post #56

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.

End patents for anything that lives

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

#110

Post by dgb23 »

wnevets wrote: post #102
efitz wrote: post #56

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.

Patents are still being used to protect smaller companies from much larger corporations. Allowing these large corporations to legally ignore patents will only make things worse for the rest of us. If we need to reform patents, maybe it should be based on revenue generated. Once a company has been successfully "incentivized" for their "innovation" the patent expires sooner.

Wait that actually makes a ton of sense, at least in theory. Never thought about it this way. Though there’s probably a want to amortize risk of failed research projects, failed as in “didn’t contribute to a product”?
Post reply on HN