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

121–130 of 371 posts

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

#121

Post by user3939382 »

wnevets wrote: post #102
efitz wrote: post #56

Most people support patents because they have this romanticized notion of some little guy in his garage inventing the next light bulb. That’s not representative of the mass offensive and defensive patterns of use by modern corporations. We should just end patents, period.

Patents are still being used to protect smaller companies from much larger corporations. Allowing these large corporations to legally ignore patents will only make things worse for the rest of us. If we need to reform patents, maybe it should be based on revenue generated. Once a company has been successfully "incentivized" for their "innovation" the patent expires sooner.

Not a bad line of thought. We also have to solve the problem where you have e.g. China and corporations in China blatantly flouting any IP laws. If we did have a just IP regime (we don't) it would continue to be severely undercut by this problem. Somehow, if it's even possible, we need buy-in/treaties etc. from the major economies.

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

#122

Post by gibspaulding »

wnevets wrote: post #102
efitz wrote: post #56

Most people support patents because they have this romanticized notion of some little guy in his garage inventing the next light bulb. That’s not representative of the mass offensive and defensive patterns of use by modern corporations. We should just end patents, period.

Patents are still being used to protect smaller companies from much larger corporations. Allowing these large corporations to legally ignore patents will only make things worse for the rest of us. If we need to reform patents, maybe it should be based on revenue generated. Once a company has been successfully "incentivized" for their "innovation" the patent expires sooner.

I could see a scenario if this were the case where some company works out a way to sit on a patent adjacent to something they sell so that they keep competitors from using the idea, while not actually using the idea itself (or using it in a way engineered not to make a profit). That way they can maintain their entrenched position longer by squashing innovation.

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

#123

Post by epistasis »

mschuster91 wrote: post #47
epistasis wrote: post #14

Cool and all, but there's not a single mention of "hybrid" on the entire page, which means that this is not targeted at the majority of, say, US agriculture. The general public does not understand agriculture well, and I've noticed that this misunderstanding is stronger among those that have huge huge concerns about seeds and GMOs. Hybridization is a huge benefit, one of the primary reasons to use seeds from somebody…

> Specialization and different roles is helping improve productivity immensely, which means less land is used by farming, and more land can be maintained, or returned from ag use for ecological restoration. There are three problems: - the most obvious, concentration of market power. Just look at the stranglehold large corporations have over politics - Walmart is for example famous for getting away with underpaying th…

> the most obvious, concentration of market power.

The solution to concentrated market power is not to abandon the productivity gains, but to use law and regulate to de-concentrate market power. We could instead ban specialization and the productivity it brings, but that's dealing with the wrong thing.

> concentration of genomics

Again, solved not by banning specialization, but rather through diversification of the market. Which also helps the market be less concentrated, and further improves productivity. "Free" markets used to mean those that were unconcentrated and allowed easy entry and competition, but rally bad market-fundamentalism ideology has twisted the meaning, and invited reactionary thinking that "markets in general are bad," which is just as wrong as the market fundamentalist approach of "markets must always be used and always are right." Markets are merely a tool that can be used for good or for bad by societies, and markets are socially constructed by law and tradition, both of which are changeable, as is other parts of society.

> pesticides

This has nothing to do with advancing knowledge and specialization, and in fact reducing pesticide usage is only going to be enabled through greater advancement of our ag tech.

> food waste,

This is a rounding error in comparison to the increase in ag productivity that we have created. Also, if you have some magical way of doing this, I'm all ears, it would be great, but wishful thinking is no substitute for actual on the ground solutions that are working.

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

#124

Post by msla »

wnevets wrote: post #102
efitz wrote: post #56

Most people support patents because they have this romanticized notion of some little guy in his garage inventing the next light bulb. That’s not representative of the mass offensive and defensive patterns of use by modern corporations. We should just end patents, period.

Patents are still being used to protect smaller companies from much larger corporations. Allowing these large corporations to legally ignore patents will only make things worse for the rest of us. If we need to reform patents, maybe it should be based on revenue generated. Once a company has been successfully "incentivized" for their "innovation" the patent expires sooner.

Large companies have patent warchests, and can engage in long-term litigation to ensure small companies cannot compete. Patents do nothing to protect small companies from that. "Ignoring patents" as you say would help level the playing field for every company, and ensure companies cannot do things like patent XOR and destroy all of their competition.

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

#125

Post by ptero »

efitz wrote: post #56

Most people support patents because they have this romanticized notion of some little guy in his garage inventing the next light bulb. That’s not representative of the mass offensive and defensive patterns of use by modern corporations. We should just end patents, period.

To me, a better approach would be to limit the patent time. 5 years of protection should be plenty of time for a company that intends to develop a technology based on its invention to get a commanding lead.

Absolutist solutions can backfire in unexpected ways. We should take an iterative approach unless a single jump is the only option. My 2c.

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

#126

Post by bheadmaster »

wnevets wrote: post #102
efitz wrote: post #56

Most people support patents because they have this romanticized notion of some little guy in his garage inventing the next light bulb. That’s not representative of the mass offensive and defensive patterns of use by modern corporations. We should just end patents, period.

Patents are still being used to protect smaller companies from much larger corporations. Allowing these large corporations to legally ignore patents will only make things worse for the rest of us. If we need to reform patents, maybe it should be based on revenue generated. Once a company has been successfully "incentivized" for their "innovation" the patent expires sooner.

In theory, yes.

In practice, the big companies usually have a ton of vague questionable defensive patents that cover a huge space of "inventions", so even if the smaller companies try to sue, they will get avalanched by an array of patent suits that could potentially bankrupt the company.

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

#127

Post by LatteLazy »

efitz wrote: post #56

Most people support patents because they have this romanticized notion of some little guy in his garage inventing the next light bulb. That’s not representative of the mass offensive and defensive patterns of use by modern corporations. We should just end patents, period.

Most people support farmers because they have a romantic idea of "Old Macdonald" instead of modern agri-corps. There is no real reason for someone to care either way in this case. Not that what the average person thinks about a niche, complex, uncertain, issue should matter...

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

#128

Post by trallnag »

pfdietz wrote: post #39
bitshiftfaced wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never knew about this. That's interesting. So then hybrid vigor is the reason farmers don't grow their own seeds, which contradicts the article. Obviously the OSS people would know this, so then the purpose must be more about encouraging plant diversity and allowing more companies to sell these varieties to farmers.

Hybrid vigor is also why eugenic nightmares are misconstructed. If some nefarious dictator wanted genetic supersoldiers, he'd breed them by hybridizing sickly inbred strains, and then prohibiting the supersoldiers from themselves reproducing.

can you explain further or maybe link to something? Eugenics can also mean eradicating certain unwanted elements like illnesses or black skin.

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

#129

Post by Vt71fcAqt7 »

SQueeeeeL wrote: post #120
wnevets wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents are still being used to protect smaller companies from much larger corporations. Allowing these large corporations to legally ignore patents will only make things worse for the rest of us. If we need to reform patents, maybe it should be based on revenue generated. Once a company has been successfully "incentivized" for their "innovation" the patent expires sooner.

>Patents are still being used to protect smaller companies from much larger corporations. Allowing these large corporations to legally ignore patents will only make things worse for the rest of us. Truly small operations don't have the bandwidth or resources to even file for a patent. So it's pretty much only medium sized companies or those with the backing of powerful groups who take advantage of the patent system.

The data are readily available.[0] It seems that small businesses actually can file patents. Even small teams and individuals can file patents, and do. I fact, patents per employee seemingly decreases as company size increases.

[0]https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/1309...

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

#130

Post by kasey_junk »

xedrac wrote: post #96
HDThoreaun wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the farmer had to do was not apply roundup to his crop when he hadn't planted the roundup resistant seeds.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that his crop is being pollinated against his will, and why should he lose the freedom to spray something on his crop because his neighbor planted a certain seed? Why does it have to infect everyone like a virus?

Because spraying roundup on non-roundup ready crops has 1 outcome, it kills them. There is no reasonable reason to do it other than to avoid the patent.

If roundup ready crops end up in your fields accidentally and then you don’t spray roundup you don’t run afoul of litigation.

Post reply on HN