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

151–160 of 371 posts

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

#151

Post by namibj »

ROTMetro wrote: post #142
version_five wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Arithmetic coding?

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

#152

Post by stale2002 »

Kalium wrote: post #133
ProjectArcturis wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case being discussed, the neighboring farmer had not signed any agreement with the vendor.

Then he acted in a way that made it clear he was using the patented materials without a license. Specifically, spraying his fields with Round-up that would have killed everything that was not patented. You can shrug and say "Oh, it was clearly an accident, Monsanto is evil". And Monsanto is certainly evil. It's just reasonably clear why the judge would view this behavior as deliberate and knowing infringement of a pa…

The original statement was as followed:

"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"

And then someone responded to this by saying that someone signed a contract.

And then you responded by going off about something that is refuted by the original statement.

So, you need to agree that the original response about a contract was wrong, and also that your new statement is irrelevant.

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

#153

Post by narrator »

deelowe wrote: post #70
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.

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…

That's why it's good to be an inventor for things that people do in America. For example, food processing techniques.

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

#154

Post by Kalium »

jmyeet wrote: post #136

I'm very close to the IP abolitionist end of the spectrum. For copyright, give works 20 years of protection. Beyond that you have to start paying hefty fees for 10 year blocks. The fee can double every 10 years. You want a Mickey Mouse ad infinitum copyright? If you're prepared to pay billions for it, go right ahead. Patents should generally not exist. Software patents should absolutely never exist. The fact that com…

On the contrary, I would bet a fair amount that ADM and similar are scrupulous about paying for hybrid seeds from Bayer and similar every year. They may get a better rate for being a very large customer, but that's true in almost every arena.

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

#155

Post by somenameforme »

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.

Apologies for the excess of links below. I find posts that spam links annoying, but if somebody believes GM products have saved millions/billions of lives, then they won't (and shouldn't) believe rando internet guy, and all the points are pretty distinct.

---

GMOs were first made available in 1994 [1]. You can find data on famine deaths over time here [2]. Global famine deaths were near zero per 100k before GMOs had been developed. As an aside on this, the reason for historic famines was often not a lack of food or crops, or even weather - but war, which disrupts supply lines and may damage production.

GMO products are also primarily only grown in the USA and Brazil. [3] Of the two largest countries in the world, India has a complete ban on GM products except cotton, and China previously had a complete ban but lately has been in a state of flux, in no small part because of trade concessions - the US really wants to sell GM soybeans to them.

The vast majority of GMOs are used to feed Americans, Brazilians, livestock, and cars. If you don't understand that last one - US/Brazilian corn is often turned into heavily subsidized ethanol fuel. Which absolutely sucks as a fuel in every possible way [4], but has found a place in the market thanks to governmental regulation.

---

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavr_Savr

[2] - https://ourworldindata.org/famine-mortality-over-the-long-ru...

[3] - https://sci-hub.ru/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007...

[4] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2016/04/25/why-a...

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

#157

Post by malikNF »

tpxl wrote: post #77
hanniabu wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly, there was a time when people wouldn't have imagined needing to pay for water

You can always walk to the nearest river and get the water for free.

Lol no you can’t. For example

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-wate...

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

#159

Post by [deleted] »

randomdata wrote: post #66
mschuster91 wrote: post #52

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. 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.

If you are referring to a case where litigation was executed under the terms of patent contract, the farmer – being a member of the public who grants such patents – has still entered into a contract by virtue of choosing to be a member of the public who has agreed that patent contracts are desirable to issue. The public had no obligation to issue the patent, but chose to. The farmer need not be a member of that publi…

[deleted]

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

#160

Post by Kalium »

stale2002 wrote: post #152
Kalium wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then he acted in a way that made it clear he was using the patented materials without a license. Specifically, spraying his fields with Round-up that would have killed everything that was not patented. You can shrug and say "Oh, it was clearly an accident, Monsanto is evil". And Monsanto is certainly evil. It's just reasonably clear why the judge would view this behavior as deliberate and knowing infringement of a pa…

The original statement was as followed: "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" And then someone responded to this by saying that someone signed a contract. And then you responded by going off about something that is refuted by the original statement. So, you need to agree that the original response about a contract was…

Yes, the original statement was overly narrow in its view of patents and contracts. Not only should you not enter into contracts that restrict how you can treat your fields, you should also not deliberately act in a way designed to infringe the rights of others if you want to be free to do as you please within the law without incurring liability.

For example, you should not deliberately cultivate a patented plant for which you lack a license from your neighbor's plot of land and then treat it in a way that only makes sense if you're doing that. That will incur liability when a judge notices you are trying to dodge licensing. To put it another way, using processing banned under law.

Post reply on HN