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

341–350 of 371 posts

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

#341

Post by BeFlatXIII »

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…

The farmer is under no moral obligation to care that the uniformed public wants. It only matters to pretend to live in a democracy.

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

#342

Post by kuhewa »

not2b wrote: post #273
shuntress wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the point of GMO technology that you can use it to accomplish this "in the lab" rather than in the field?

But then the GMO company patents the result, and it's not legal for a farmer to do what farmers have been doing for ten thousand years: save some of the seeds from the crop and plant them the next year, or give some to a neighboring farmer. Getting out of that trap is a prime motivation for "open source seeds" projects.

> save some of the seeds from the crop and plant them the next year, or give some to a neighboring farmer

That hasn't been the predominant practice for the majority of farms for coming up on a century. Cross pollinated hybrid seeds are just way too productive to justify growing your own open pollinated varieties.

That 'trap' didn't arise with GMOs

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

#343

Post by pfdietz »

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #338
pfdietz wrote: post #33

Earlier 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.

> and justice was done That's one of the stupidest things I've read on this website.

It's perfectly clear it was a correct legal decision. The farmer was deliberately and intentionally trying to evade the patent, as we've explained multiple times in these comments.

Perhaps you could explain why the decision was incorrect? Or why justice demanded differently?

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

#344

Post by tptacek »

kirubakaran wrote: post #278
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…

(Matasano / Monsanto confusion intensifies)

I've said this before, but we put a sign up on the door of our Mountain View office, because people thought we were the evil mutant corn company.

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

#345

Post by bob29 »

pfdietz wrote: post #334
bob29 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Objection when they are overly broad generic obvious and\or trivial Am surprised even need to explain on this forum of coders. Many examples of bad boy software patents.

And you evidence that the patents for these potatoes was "overly broad generic obvious and/or trivial" is...?

Our illiterate ancestors have been doing it for thousands of years.

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

#346

Post by LawTalkingGuy »

tptacek wrote: post #98
cnity wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 propert…

It's a honest argument.

It seems perfectly reasonable to most people that even if you own a patent on a seed that if I obtain it and can grow it I should be able to, in the way that your rights are generally exhausted if you sell a patented part to retail.

Monsanto would lose nothing in case where it was accidental and where the farmer intended it Monsanto would benefit from selling roundup.

Because of this, no plausible damages to Monsanto and that doing nothing is a perfect solution, the lawsuits seem egregious.

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

#347

Post by pfdietz »

bob29 wrote: post #345
pfdietz wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you evidence that the patents for these potatoes was "overly broad generic obvious and/or trivial" is...?

Our illiterate ancestors have been doing it for thousands of years.

That's a whopper of a non sequitur. I was asking about the specific patent on these potatoes. Our ancestors have been growing this specific patented version of potatoes for thousands of years? Really?

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

#348

Post by tharkun__ »

supportlocal4h wrote: post #315
tharkun__ wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd totally agree w/ this from the "grow corn and then feed cows with it" standpoint. This is doubly bad if you're displacing natural grasslands and grassland grazing with this. I.e. plant corn on your previous grasslands and cram the cows into some barn. This came through HN just recently. Another way to do the same though is to go back to what the big buffalo herds were naturally doing. I.e. let your cows actually…

Then you have a dispute about who owns the 10000s of acres and who to pay for the grazing rights. And who is responsible for maintaining all that range? And can somebody be tried twice for a mistake in their management of open range? Then people with and without badges show up with guns. Ok, that hardly ever happens.

I'm not sure I understand. Nowhere did I say anything about actually putting bison back out there in the way the settlers found things when they moved in.

But instead of planting lots of corn and feeding your barn full of cattle with it you can also own that same piece of land and sustainably make grass fed beef. Said beef would keep your soil fertile by trampling and shitting on it.

In addition to this your vet and meds bills will be lower to non existent because you don't get the same disease issues you get in cramped barn quarters.

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

#349

Post by brnaftr361 »

pfdietz wrote: post #307
brnaftr361 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$169 for a HiFi Gibson Assembly kit. Up to 8000bp for about $2200-3500. It's not as forbidding as you might think. The insistence on IP law being the only probable, legitimate incentive is what's spurious.

That's like pointing to the cost of laboratory glassware to claim drug discovery isn't expensive.

Discovery isn't. Look at all the RCs and other designer drugs around, or Shulgin. I could pull a shit out of my ass and probably find a microbe with something noteworthy in it.

A lot of this shit just happens by accident. LSD, Viagra, Penicillin off the top of my head. All had huge impacts too.

It's everything post, and a bunch of overpaid jackoffs and hullabaloo. You're not going to take an RC with an open license to market because there's a billion dollars in intermediary steps between finding it and proving it's safe and effective.

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

#350

Post by shmerl »

pfdietz wrote: post #249
shmerl wrote: post #109

Patents on plants is an abysmally stupid idea that shouldn't exist.

They serve a legitimate public purpose, to allow the creators of new plant varieties to earn enough to justify their creation. Why are you entitled to the results of this effort but deny the creators their due? Do you think these varieties just come into existence out of thin air, and those patenting them are somehow unfairly exploiting a windfall?

That's a sarcastic post I assume? Because the notion of patenting life forms is simply evil. No one should be entitled to it. And those who allowed it are corrupt crooks.
Post reply on HN