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

101–110 of 144 posts

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

#101

Post by moi2388 »

odie5533 wrote: post #57
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.

Plant patents incentivize the creation of disease resistant, tasty, and hardy varieties. If you remove the patents, you remove the incentive for private capital. Capital to create new plants has to come from somewhere: public tax funding, grower-funded pools, or patent licensing. We do a mix of all three.

Farmers already have plenty of incentive for hardy and resistant varieties. People already have plenty of incentive for tasty varieties.

You don’t need patents. The single biggest technology driver has been maths. And it doesn’t have patents.

Patents stifle innovation.

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

#102

Post by shash »

Aurornis wrote: post #49
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…

Despite what everyone is assuming, this case doesn't depend on patents. The farmer entered into an agreement with another company and they're locked in a legal battle about that agreement. > Fresno County Superior Court Judge Jon Skiles in May ruled that Giumarra’s breach of contract claim can go forward, saying that the agreement between Giumarra and Mora is valid whether there is a patent for the fruit or not. > “T…

What I don’t understand is, _how_ it doesn’t depend on a patent right. How do you license something that doesn’t depend on a licensable right?

If it isn’t a patent right, exactly _what_ is he purchasing a license to? If it’s purely an agreement of exclusivity to Giumarra, it can’t be called a “sub license” and the consequence is just a breach of contract (which is what it sounds like). But in that case I’m sure there are mutual termination agreements in the exclusivity contract.

Also, if it’s _not_ a patent, what exactly does the company bring to the table? For what consideration does the farmer give them an exclusive access to his trees?

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

#103

Post by devilbunny »

efitz wrote: post #97
jwsteigerwalt wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, many people get worked up over the idea of the patents that could be in play here; plenty of good reason when that is a consideration. The court has already decided that the existence of a patent or licensing agreement is not relevant; It’s a contract dispute.

I’d still make the same argument- the remedy should be monetary damages, not enjoinder. Produce had a short shelf life; enjoinder has the same effect on the farmer as a loss in court, only before the trial. The other party to the contract can be made whole later, if victorious, via monetary damages.

This is how legal reasoning should work.

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

#104

Post by gruez »

basilikum wrote: post #72
werdnapk wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

>you cannot steal genes.

Why not? You can steal bits, unless you think copyright law's bunk as well. You can even steal ideas (patents).

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

#105

Post by cyberax »

jolmg wrote: post #100
delichon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, he's not suggesting that they be sent prematurely, just that they should endure eternal torture afterwards. That seems harsh for growing a seedless grape.

People also say things in ways not to be taken super literally. "There's a special place in hell" is an idiom. > Said of a person whom one considers to be especially wicked, evil, malevolent, etc. Often used facetiously or sarcastically. From: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/there's+a+special+place... So they're not really saying this either: > just that they should endure eternal torture afterwards They're real…

Let's try this: "greenie hippie who want to starve the humanity deserve a special place in hell".

Hmm? Not bad, I think?

What? You're saying that greenie hippies think that they're actually saving the humanity by forcing it to get close to the Great Spirit, Wisdom of The Anciens or some such nonsense?

Well, Monsanto also had good reasons for developing self-terminating seeds. They are more contained, have almost zero risk of accidentally spreading resistance to other species, and they still can be easily recreated by anyone once the patent expires.

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

#106

Post by bpodgursky »

dylan604 wrote: post #85
bpodgursky wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so simplistic. They made a new varietal. Nobody is saying he can't plant any of the standard heirloom Nectarines. The patent will expire in a while, and then anyone can do it. Honestly, how are you proposing incentivizing developing new varietals if nobody can have patents on any breeds at all? This is how it has worked for half a century and mild gripes aside, the quality of the produce in stores is WAY WAY…

> The patent will expire in a while, and then anyone can do it. I've read this a couple of times in these comments. However, this "in a while" is meaningless. A quick search suggests plant patents are 20 years from filing of patent. That's not as bad as I was thinking after hearing about the copyright nonsense of 95 years of publication or 120 years from creation depending. That'd be multiple generations of farmers r…

Yes, I assumed that was common knowledge. 20 years is pretty reasonable.

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

#107

Post by bpodgursky »

yulker wrote: post #56
bpodgursky wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so simplistic. They made a new varietal. Nobody is saying he can't plant any of the standard heirloom Nectarines. The patent will expire in a while, and then anyone can do it. Honestly, how are you proposing incentivizing developing new varietals if nobody can have patents on any breeds at all? This is how it has worked for half a century and mild gripes aside, the quality of the produce in stores is WAY WAY…

profit share, royalties, etc. many ways to structure economic benefit

That... was exactly the deal he had and didn't like.

> Under the agreements, Mora was to pay Giumarra a royalty of $2.50 per tree and a 4% production royalty based off the gross sales of the fruit the trees produced, as well as a sales commission.

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

#108

Post by [deleted] »

Aurornis wrote: post #47
sampo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their wild propagation In general, crop plants don't propagate well in the wild. The whole point of breeding a crop plant is to remove their chemical defenses (to make them edible) and to make them produce lots of edible parts. This is usually the direct opposite of what plants need to survive in the wild.

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...

[deleted]

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

#109

Post by em-bee »

snypher wrote: post #98
em-bee wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So should they ask the trees to fruit less, or cut them down knowing they can't get them back online for 10 years?

they should sell the fruits. and if can't sell all the fruit then yes, eventually they will need to reduce production.
Post reply on HN