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

Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 144 posts

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#71

Post by Aurornis »

sampo wrote: post #68
Aurornis wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wind carries pollen from the crops long distances, where it cross-pollinates with other crops, some of which are grown from seed. This is a real thing that happens. There have been major court cases about it, like this one from Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...

If we understand "in the wild" to mean outside of farmers' fields, then rapeseed pollen flying from one rapeseed field to another nearby rapeseed field is not "in the wild".

If you redefine the words to win an argument you can win the argument.

By "wild propagation" I meant outside of the original controlled planting.

Propagating to another farm leaves the controlled area and now it's spreading in the wild.

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#72

Post by basilikum »

werdnapk wrote: post #25
john_strinlai wrote: post #2

> locked in a legal battle with a company that claims exclusive rights over the variety of white nectarine he grows. > [...] Fruit patents are becoming more common this is unbelievably stupid. no company should have rights or patents over a variety of food.

If you spent decades doing selective breeding to obtain a more desirable product, you'd probably be a bit annoyed if others just stole the product from you and made money off of your hard work. If the products are being bred from tax funded programs, then yes, anybody should have access to the new breeds, but if it's privately funded, then why should it be available for everyone? Without the protection, there isn't m…

> you'd probably be a bit annoyed if others just stole the product

For sure, no one is arguing for stealing fruits here. However while you can steal physical fruits, you cannot steal genes.

> then why should it be available for everyone?

Why should it not be? You seem to view the right to breed a variety of some species that you created as some natural right and default. It is not. What you are arguing for here is the state going after people for creating the environment for plants to reproduce, which is a natural right.

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#73

Post by dylan604 »

cyberax wrote: post #50
efitz wrote: post #6

Patents on food crops, even genetically engineered ones, are evil. ALL our staple food crops and most non staples are genetically engineered by millennia of cultivation and selective breeding; CRISPR is just a fancy mechanism for what we’ve always done to food. Regulations that prevent farmers from selling food that is safe, are evil. It doesn’t matter how well intentioned the regulation is. Any government functionar…

> ALL our staple food crops and most non staples are genetically engineered by millennia of cultivation and selective breeding And during the last 100 years, the yields for many types of plants have grown several _times_ because of modern selective breeding methods. Here's a nice graph for cereals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Index-of-cereal-productio... So you want to go back hundreds of years and force peopl…

> So you want to go back hundreds of years and force people to live in hunger with frequent famines?

Sadly, there are theories that this is precisely something that is desired as population control of groups that are "less desirable". It's usually the same groups that say AIDS was designed for the same purpose.

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#74

Post by HDThoreaun »

john_strinlai wrote: post #2

> locked in a legal battle with a company that claims exclusive rights over the variety of white nectarine he grows. > [...] Fruit patents are becoming more common this is unbelievably stupid. no company should have rights or patents over a variety of food.

This isnt even a patent case. Its a contracts case. The article says these trees arent under patent, the farmer signed a contract saying he would only sell to one supplier and now wants to sell to others.

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#75

Post by ribosometronome »

basilikum wrote: post #62
ribosometronome wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, invention of new things is something humanity's been tackling for quite awhile. Why would this apply specifically to food versus, well, everything?

There are inanimate objects that are manually made out of raw materials by humans. It can make sense to grant the inventor of such a thing a time limited monopoly on its production by banning anyone else from manufacturing it for sale and distribution. Living beings are not inanimate objects that are manually made out of raw materials. They are not human-made. They reproduce and humans only create the environment for…

Patents function only to limit the actions of what living beings can and cannot do.

Plus, it's seems false to paint this orchard as just an environment humans created where they reproduced. It's a place where the farmer very specifically reproduced them, not just the conditions.

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#76

Post by gruez »

qlm wrote: post #54
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a general thought on your comment style. Summarily declaring something "evil" means that you're not really interested in hearing any other comments on the topic, and that additional data or analysis of the issue will have no effect on your opinion. Which, in and of itself, may be fine for you, but I find it to be the absolute least useful comments on HN.

I appreciate when somebody speaks with conviction about their beliefs.

What's the purpose of communication? Is it to convince, or to preach to the choir/your side? If it's the former, I doubt summarily labeling everything "evil" or "a human right" is going to change any minds. If it's the latter, what's even the point? Is it to make you feel good about yourself or make yourself look good in front of your activist friends?

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#77

Post by jandrewrogers »

em-bee wrote: post #59
maxerickson wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you bar a contract for the productivity of a tree for a given period of time, with a clause dictating how excess produce is to be disposed of?

yes, there should be no excess that needs to be disposed. if you produce excess you should reduce production.

A state of "excess production" can only be determined long after production parameters have already been committed to. Yields, logistics costs, and market capacity aren't knowable ahead of time.

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#78

Post by JumpCrisscross »

em-bee wrote: post #52
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no contract should allow or force a producer to throw products away It doesn't, to my knowledge. It requires they not sell them.

that's the same thing. if you can't throw it away you need to be allowed to sell it. the point here is sustainable production. the EU is implementing laws around that. if you produce more than what you can sell, then you need to reduce production and stop wasting resources.

> that's the same thing

It's really not. Exhibit A: this farmer giving away his nectarines. Hell, maybe he can write off the loss as a donation.

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#79

Post by jolmg »

cyberax wrote: post #39
efitz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, and there is a special place in hell reserved for anyone involved in designing food crops that can’t reproduce.

So you want to destroy all the people who create hybrid plants? Isn't that a bit cruel? Edit: also, Monsanto has never actually used their non-replicating seeds. This is a common trope in the greenie hippie community that "Monsanto wants to own your food forever".

Strawman if I ever saw one.

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#80

Post by slowking2 »

em-bee wrote: post #52
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no contract should allow or force a producer to throw products away It doesn't, to my knowledge. It requires they not sell them.

that's the same thing. if you can't throw it away you need to be allowed to sell it. the point here is sustainable production. the EU is implementing laws around that. if you produce more than what you can sell, then you need to reduce production and stop wasting resources.

It’s not the same thing. He is allowed to give them away and is doing so. If Mora is in breach of contract, maybe a better remedy for the distributor would be monetary damages but that is not obvious.

There’s an interesting question of if the distributor misrepresented the deal to Mora as he claims, but from the summary it appears nothing related to that is recorded that the court finds legally relevant.

Post reply on HN