111–120 of 144 posts
If he donates these to a charity, what are the rules on taking a tax deduction for this unusual situation? Can it have value for the purposes of a donation if you can't sell it? Would taking a tax deduction trigger a patent liability?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
As you say, it mostly comes down to what the parties agreed to about exiting the contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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).
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?
I can go for a month, probably longer, without, say, the internet. I could also go a month without food, maybe, but there are people who can't. Food is different because it is essential to life.
If farmers dont want to pay for patented species, then they will grow unpatented food, which you can eat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Patents on food crops, even genetically engineered ones, are evil Eh, I'd say it's fair to give them a short window of patent protection. Say 20 years, akin to pharmaceuticals. The only exception should be if the protected variety has a monopoly. Then it immediately loses patent protection.
20 years is the max length of nearly all patents. So you really aren't giving them any concession there. Also, all patents are monopoly. That is actually what a patent provides, it provides a limited government sanctioned monopoly over the invention.
Come on. Every product is then a monopoly because it’s the only one of its kind.
If your GMO seed plants 80% of its crop in the country, no patent. Otherwise, farmers choosing to plant your seeds are making a choice and should pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If he donates these to a charity, what are the rules on taking a tax deduction for this unusual situation? Can it have value for the purposes of a donation if you can't sell it? Would taking a tax deduction trigger a patent liability?
The entire crop cost is already tax dedeuctable by default. Taxes are on profits
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The entire crop cost is already tax dedeuctable by default. Taxes are on profits
Then that leads to the question... is it proper for the farmer to take the deduction for the costs of growing crops he is not legally allowed to sell?
Most people dont waste money for fun, and the deductions are basically never worth the cost. (why would someone spend 100k on a business to save 25k on taxes? they would still net $-75k)
Also, if you continually loose money over many years, the IRS may question if it is a legitimate business or a hobby for personal gain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, but my point is: Monsanto is obviously incorrect. It's plain to see. Plants grow without permission. Bytes flow without permission. Ideas propagate without permission. All this silliness to create a huge complicated regime to pretend that these things are "property" in the same sense as your underwear is just so obviously childish, incoherent, and inconsistent with reality. It's just a really elaborate gow…
>Of course, but my point is: Monsanto is obviously incorrect. It's plain to see. Plants grow without permission. Bytes flow without permission. Ideas propagate without permission. So you're against any sort of intellectual property?
I observe that the universe in which I live doesn't seem to include the concept of intellectual property, and that there is quite a lot of misery and confusion that arises from efforts to shoehorn it in.
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…