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

141–150 of 371 posts

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

#141

Post by edmundsauto »

quantified wrote: post #111
tptacek wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The farmers were not trying to grow the patented seeds. They shouldn't be liable for their neighbor's trash blowing on their fields. The use of Roundup is another travesty.

The farmer may have claimed they weren't trying to. The fact they used Roundup, which would have killed their crop if it weren't the GM seeds, indicates otherwise.

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

#142

Post by ROTMetro »

version_five wrote: post #75
deelowe wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally know several people who were able to start successful careers solely based on their inventions and the protections afforded to them via patents. This seems extremely short sighted. In fact, the bigger issue to me is that patents don't matter for companies located in countries where they are not recognized (e.g. China). The biggest issue with "some little guy in his garage" inventing stuff these days is t…

A bigger issue with for the little guy is his garage is that if his actually innovation contains some trivial subcomponent that's part of a patent troll or large competitors portfolio, they can can sued into the ground, either to leech of their success or to prevent competition. patents favor big companies and trolls, and as a legal instrument it's basically impossible to change that because the costs and complexity…

Show me where this has happened? You present a theoretical against an actual. I know more people who have been enabled via patents than have been squashed (I know of zero squashed who were actually doing something new/novel).

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

#143

Post by f-securus »

tptacek wrote: post #115
ladyattis wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just demonstrates how patents are a form of rent seeking. You own the product of your labor but you should not be able to assume you own the accidental products that are related to your labor (ex. buying tools from a tool smith which then you use to make your own tool smithy).

There is no way that analogy holds in this case. The farmer didn't cultivate their own RoundUp to spray, among other problems with it.

What if the farmer was trying to clear the land with roundup and the accidental gmo modified crops prevented him from doing so. Could he sue for damages?

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

#144

Post by Kalium »

mschuster91 wrote: post #52
randomdata wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. The farmer had not entered into any contract with anyone, that is the point. It's not his fault if pollen from his neighbor's field entered his field, even if they contained "patented" technology.

Then, without a license, he had no right to exploit the patented technology. The farmer acted in a way that showed a knowing and deliberate exploitation of the patented technology. There seems to be a disconnect here, but I'm not seeing it. Can you help me with what I've missed?

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

#145

Post by narrator »

SQueeeeeL wrote: post #120
wnevets wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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. Truly small operations don't have the bandwidth or resources to even file for a patent. So it's pretty much only medium sized companies or those with the backing of powerful groups who take advantage of the patent system.

I successfully patented a product and licensed that patent to a small company that does quite well selling a product based on that patent. It did cost about $15k, but that's business risk. If a megacorp ever infringed the patent, we could sue them. Sure, they could try and work around it with other designs, but their product wouldn't work as well.

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

#146

Post by wnevets »

freddref wrote: post #140
wnevets wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you give us an example where a smaller company was successful in court against a much larger corp?

You are asking the wrong question IMO.

We really want examples of large companies licensing patents or buying smaller companies for their patents. Both are examples of patents helping smaller companies against those much larger. If patents no longer existed those smaller companies would get nothing.

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

#147

Post by Kalium »

f-securus wrote: post #143
tptacek wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no way that analogy holds in this case. The farmer didn't cultivate their own RoundUp to spray, among other problems with it.

What if the farmer was trying to clear the land with roundup and the accidental gmo modified crops prevented him from doing so. Could he sue for damages?

Perhaps! Though in this case it seems he engaged in the behavior over an extended period of time and did not consider the patented crops a problem.

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

#148

Post by hammock »

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.

>maybe it should be based on revenue generated

The pitfall there is that there is no guarantee of revenue. You also invite the possibility of predatorily delaying revenue generation. Potential revenue generated would be more on the nose.

In another sense, sustaining a patent until it generates sufficient revenue can be seen as oxymoronic to the idea that patents incent products that serve the public interest - since, if the patent is not creating value, how can it be in the public interest?

Patent lifespans are already sort of considered based on potential revenue generated, and use number of years as a proxy for that

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

#149

Post by narrator »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #86
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.

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.

Norman Bourlag is the guy mostly responsible for the huge increases in agricultural productivity in the 20th century and he gave most of his stuff away.

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

#150

Post by 2Gkashmiri »

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.

>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.

why? why does it have to be only larger companies? if its a free for all, i copy your product, you copy mine. how is that not free market? people will choose so let them.

you could decide to not publicly release a product but you risk your competitor "inventing" the same thing in their own way so you can only either release it first or make the biggest noise.

Post reply on HN