Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

readersupportednews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 225 posts

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#171

Post by georgemcbay »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #137
JPKab wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Krugman's science is economics. Economics is pretty much the pinnacle of politics intersecting with science. His view on the science is that the Keynesian model is correct, and he sees an entire political party which has embraced the Austrian model which most economists disagree with. This is why he writes passionately in support of government spending during times of recession/depression. He argues, correctly in my…

I don't disagree with the essentials of what you said, and in fact Krugman himself sits pretty near the peak of economics, but... 1. Krugman-cum-commentator occasionally contradicts Krugman-cum-economist. For example, [1] 2. Krugman falls into the same trap as most economic commentators, in assuming that one side of the Keynes/Hayek divide has been proven right (which side depends on the commentator in question), ref…

"The truth of the matter is that neither side should "consider the debate won, since both haven't achieved the scientific holy grail: to be able to reliably predict what will happen, given the inputs."

There isn't a science that can make reliable predictions if the model relies on inputs consisting of even a tiny bit of human decision making, and economics is completely controlled by human decision making.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#172

Post by tptacek »

jerf wrote: post #157
andylei wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for those that don't understand the implications of this: the runyons claim that the seeds got there accidentally, and imply that they had no knowledge of the seeds' origins. given that they also sprayed Roundup on their crops, the claim just makes no sense. if your crops are not "Roundup-ready", Roundup will kill your crops along with the weeds. if it was really the wind that blew in some seeds, then they never woul…

I can think of an extremely simple experiment that can be run on a field of unknown corn to determine if it is Roundup ready, in a few hours, with only the loss of a couple of corn plants and less than a teaspoon of Roundup.

I think it's pretty well stipulated in this case that the farmer knew the field was sown with Roundup-ready crops, and that the farmer deliberately employed Roundup to exploit that.

The farmer's argument was that they didn't sow those seeds deliberately, and that they should therefore be allowed to take advantage of the Roundup-ready properties of the field without paying licensing fees.

I don't have a strong opinion about the validity of that argument, except to note that Monsanto is in this case in a bind very similar to that of IP rightsholders. Seeds can be propagated like bits; in theory, that propagation occurs without any cost to Monsanto. But in practice, widespread unauthorized copying destroys the Monsanto business model.

The possibility of unintended propagation of Monsanto seeds probably makes them less sympathetic than IP rightsholders; nobody accidentally pirates a full-length movie.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#173

Post by skosuri »

fleitz wrote: post #170
ChuckMcM wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An excellent point. That would certainly be a point in Monsanto's favor. I am not sure I could say the same about the BRCA1 gene for breast cancer diagnosis though. That too is patented. Which reinforces for me how complex this issue is. We often discuss software patents (and as "practitioner of the art" :-) I can relate.) but I am not a biologist, much less a geneticist.

Yeah there are definitely points on each side. I wonder too how difficult this stuff is to skilled people, I wonder if there is a biohacker news where people laugh about the triviality of making something resistant to round up, like the triviality of 1 click purchasing.

I wish there was a biohacker news. While the idea is pretty trivial. Showing that it worked, getting it into plants and getting it to work well, and then getting the products through the pretty significant regulatory hurdles is not trivial.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#174

Post by peterwwillis »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #118
peterwwillis wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is reeeeeeeally missing the point. The conversation was about (apparently) the ethics of selling a product which is known to be used a majority of the time for the aim of killing a thing (whether that be deer or human, is up to the owner of the gun/bullet). This should not be a controversial statement. Before someone says "oh but you can use it for target shooting and/or sport!", there is nothing about the funct…

Peter and the sibling comment to this one seem to be ill-informed about firearms. unless you are the worst hunter in the entire world, would never need such a weapon for hunting. It's like a bow and arrow with a grenade on the end. This is false. An AK-47 shoots 7.62x39 cartridges, similar to .308 Winchester, which is a very common load for deer hunting. I own an SKS, which was the predecessor to the AK, and shoots t…

What I was saying about the AK-47 is that it's overkill in terms of weapons designed for hunting deer. The AK is designed to work in the sand after being left in the desert for a year and shoot practically like new. The clip is (imho) overkill - you really need more than 5 rounds to take down a single buck? And like you mentioned, full-automatic is dumb for hunting (thought I might appreciate it if I suddenly discovered a grizzly in my tent at 3am).

I'm no great hunter, but an assault rifle is IMHO not best suited for hunting game. Effective stopping power is important, but so is picking the right tool for the job.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#175

Post by earnon »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #152

Another interesting batch of comments. Generally a lot of hating on Monsanto (which is exploiting the fact that genes can be patented). This "story" is part of a bigger conversation going on. The outcome of which is very much up in the air. The conversation we're having is "Should it be allowed for individuals, or companies, to patent genetic sequences?" On the 'for' side we have people like Monsanto who make the cla…

Is it the farmers who have a powerful lobby, or the food processors, such as Monstanto and ADM?

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#176

Post by shawn-butler »

jlgreco wrote: post #151
planetguy wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, I can make it a patent analogy if you like: A plane crashes on your land. You reverse-engineer the jet engine and start selling your own jet engines.

Terrible. How about this (with thanks to another HNer): You patent a specially engineered cow to taste good with your specially engineered steak sauce. One day your specially engineered steers jump my fence and rape my cows. Upon realizing this, I begin buying your special steak sauce from you and eating my new cows with it. When your analogy is not about "patent law pertaining to genetic material ", you wash out the…

Steers, per se, lack the (ahem, equipment) capacity to impregnate cows. I think you mean your bull jumps my fence.

Also I believe it could be argued that a specially engineered bull would rise to the level of a "dangerous animal" (such as keeping an elephant or a lion) for purposes of trespass and liability. The owner of a genetically engineered, patent-encumbered, bull would know and have prior knowledge about the unique danger involved in having such an animal escape and be held especially liable.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#177

Post by JunkDNA »

fleitz wrote: post #159
ChuckMcM wrote: post #152

Another interesting batch of comments. Generally a lot of hating on Monsanto (which is exploiting the fact that genes can be patented). This "story" is part of a bigger conversation going on. The outcome of which is very much up in the air. The conversation we're having is "Should it be allowed for individuals, or companies, to patent genetic sequences?" On the 'for' side we have people like Monsanto who make the cla…

"herbicide attacks particular plant functions which are expressed by specific genes. So there is no 'wiggle' room around other people wanting to create the same capability without infringing the patent." I don't think that's true, immediately I'm thinking of enzymes that could cleave the herbicide, or making plants resistant to a different herbicide. Monsanto is primarily a maker of herbicides not GM crops, GM crops…

Came here to make a similar point: not only could you make a plant that produces enzymes that cleave the herbicide, you could make a plant that expresses efflux pumps that pump the herbicide out of the cells, making the plant immune as well. This mechanism is used by cancer tumors and bacteria to resist all the crap we throw at them trying to kill them. I suspect there are a multitude of ways to make Round-up resistant crops.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#179

Post by brazzy »

fleitz wrote: post #159
ChuckMcM wrote: post #152

Another interesting batch of comments. Generally a lot of hating on Monsanto (which is exploiting the fact that genes can be patented). This "story" is part of a bigger conversation going on. The outcome of which is very much up in the air. The conversation we're having is "Should it be allowed for individuals, or companies, to patent genetic sequences?" On the 'for' side we have people like Monsanto who make the cla…

"herbicide attacks particular plant functions which are expressed by specific genes. So there is no 'wiggle' room around other people wanting to create the same capability without infringing the patent." I don't think that's true, immediately I'm thinking of enzymes that could cleave the herbicide, or making plants resistant to a different herbicide. Monsanto is primarily a maker of herbicides not GM crops, GM crops…

> Also, the Roundup Ready soybeans patent is due to expire in 2014, so in 2 years farmers all around the world get Roundup Ready soybeans for free, just as the patent system intended.

Unless Monsanto suddenly stops selling Roundup and instead sells a different, "new and improved" herbicide with a new set of recently-patented resistent seeds. And lobbies for governments to ban Roundup because of a recently study saying it's a threat to the environment after all.

At least that's how it tends to work in the pharmaceutics industry.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#180

Post by mcarvin »

I'm going to take Monsanto's side here. The farmers are upset because they are being charged royalties over use of renewal seeds produced from the original 'store bought' seeds.

The argument is over whether the purchase of seeds implies the farmer is financing the 'use' (like a car lease) or the 'ownership' of the seed (like a car purchase).

Monsanto will argue that as the seed's utility is not entirely consumed by it's use (planting) that the most suitable pricing model is to finance the 'use' of the seed, not its ownership. Ergo royalties.

They have an enormously strong point to make here - which is that if ownership were implied by purchase the price would be much higher (as they would need to factor in both the value that future generations of seed provides and cannibalization of future seed demand from renewals).

Which is why the outcome of this case is somewhat moot. If Monsanto is prevented from charging a royalty because of some technicality they would simply charge a much higher upfront price, which they would then allow you to finance (and the farmer will end up being economically indifferent to whether it is called a royalty or not).

Post reply on HN