Trying to work out what's going wrong in the cases this article describes, such that the principle "you can't patent something that exists" apparently doesn't apply. Is it that an independent breeder develops a certain strain, say red salad, and then a big company makes a modification to that strain, and patents the modification, such that the independent breeder is prevented somehow from continuing to develop red salad? That still doesn't make perfect sense to me but it makes more legal sense than "company got patent on what you already made, you can't make it anymore", which is just not how patents work.
“Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
171–180 of 371 posts
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#172Earlier 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?
No, if he didn't save seeds from crop plants on that land. That saving of seeds after spraying was the incriminating act.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#173Most 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.
The problem with ending patents is the alternative is medieval guilds that jealously guard their knowledge, sometimes using lethal force. The great thing about patents is that they force people to publish the knowledge so it won't be lost to the sands of time when they close up shop. That said, our current patent system is problematic for sure. The bar for getting a patent has become far too low as systems have becom…
> The problem with ending patents is the alternative is medieval guilds that jealously guard their knowledge, sometimes using lethal force. The great thing about patents is that they force people to publish the knowledge so it won't be lost to the sands of time when they close up shop.
The government & large corporations use force via the justice system & jealously guard top secrets, to the point of violence as well. Property can be seized. I'd rather have a distribution of power than consolidation, which seems to attract people who are motivated by controlling other people, thereby undermining the supposed benefits.
> The bar for getting a patent has become far too low
The process is also expensive & serves as a barrier to innovation via market monopolies. The problem with monopolies is that they don't serve the marketplace or consumers. Monopoly is pure rent for the entities that control the monopoly. It is common for a dominant company to buy the rights to a patent only to quash the technology, all to serve the dominant company's stranglehold over a market.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#174Most 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 don't think we should end patents, as I think that someone that develops an idea has the right to profit from that idea, if she chooses so (and the same holdsfor companies doing R&D). What I think should be done, is reflecting on patents/copyright duration, as in some cases it seems too long for me, to the point that in some cases we have that the profits end up in the hands of companies that have nothing to do with the original inventor/author.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
That patents genes spread lightly onto his field didn't give him a "get out of patent free card" to then concentrate those genes by spraying the field with herbicide. The courts properly understood that intent and actions matter here. The farmer was in the wrong and justice was done.
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).
In no way was that depiction accurate. Indeed, if an innocent farmer were, by no fault of his own, found liable for contamination, he could properly sue the others for contaminating his land. For this reason, Monsanto always said it would never sue just for accidental contamination, and never did.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't know about hybrid seeds: "In agriculture and gardening, hybrid seed is produced by deliberately cross-pollinated plants which are genetically diverse" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed
They're also a huge pain in the ass to produce, at least in my experience. Producing hybrid corn seeds, for instance, is done by planting the two varieties in the same field, with one combine-width of rows of variety A alternating with rows of variety B. Then you need to wait until variety A is grown and ready to tassel, and de-tassel it before those tassels fully form and release the pollen that drifts onto the corn…
I used to hear about "detasseling corn" as an utterly miserable short-term summer job option for high school students. Walking through cornfields in heavy clothes (to avoid getting cut up by the leaves) in summer in Iowa.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#177Earlier 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.
>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,…
You wouldn't need to get rid of the current limits, just expire the patent sooner. If a company generates $10 Billion dollars in the first 5 years of their 20 year patent the reminding 15 years isn't necessary to incentivize innovation.
Rewarding innovation has been archived, just skip ahead to the part where the public at large benefits.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#178Can I share a shower thought? Just because this thread made me thing about how wealth is accumulating so much at the top yet there is so much poverty.
What if we put a limit on inheritance. Let say at most 100M go to your kids.
The rest is put on a fund with your name and shares a given to kids when they are born. A way to have a legacy that doesn't just go to your kids but to every kid in the next generation. Perhaps rich people can be remembered that way and they don't have to play games trying to be in the in top of forbes, etc.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#179Most 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.
When the little person in their garage invents the next light bulb, and goes to industry players to try to license it, they just steal their idea and legally stonewall them for the remainder of their lifespan.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#180Most 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.
"Of course, salad is no software, and the work of plant breeders has to be protected. Otherwise they might fare like plant breeder Jim Baggett in Oregon, who in 1966 started breeding broccoli with an extra-long stem so it could be harvested more easily. He shared his novel broccoli with researchers and other breeders — until Monsanto-offspring Seminis patented a broccoli with exactly that trait in 2011. Baggett could trace more than a third of the plant material to his work. "
Patents at work.