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

131–140 of 371 posts

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

#131

Post by Kalium »

RajT88 wrote: post #58
cnity wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God forbid the farmers benefit for free in some way from the unpredictable and uncontrollable pollination of a plant genetically engineered to be a highly successful cultivar. I'm not attacking you here, but the logic decided by the courts may be lawful but it is not moral (in my opinion). It's as if a noisy neighbour hosts a late night party and you happen to enjoy the music. The neighbour notices and decides to cha…

The ability to patent life itself is a dangerous one. Imagine where these precedents lead when inevitably we start genetically engineering people. If you yourself carry genes engineered by a biotech firm (cancer resistance or laser eye beams, you can pick according to whim), do you have to pay them royalties when you have children?

Even without patents, there's a whole system of plant breeder's rights. The idea is that even without patents, breeding plants for a particular set of characteristics is a ton of work and the rights system is a patent-like way to commercialize.

If you have a different idea for solving this particular financial problem, I expect quite a lot of people would love to hear about it.

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

#132

Post by epistasis »

badcppdev wrote: post #31
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…

Hybridisation sounds like a bug not a feature. You get a benefit but with quite an extreme tradeoff. To be clear I understand that hybrids are current best practice. But the hybrid practice seem antithetical to open source agriculture. BTW would you say that seed producers have no motivation to develop non-hybrids that will perform as well as hybrids?

> But the hybrid practice seem antithetical to open source agriculture.

I disagree, open source ag is completely compatible with hybridization. And if open source couldn't somehow deal with the benefits of hybridization, then open source ag is not a route we should follow.

Farming is a transformation of inputs into food. It's not about seeds and propagating seeds every season... that's just an attachment to a practice like being super attached to, say FTP as the only way to transfer files and deploy a website.

Open Source Ag is completely compatible with maintaining two strains, crossing them, and then distributing those seeds. Having widely distributed access to these seeds, and information about them, gives the chance for more innovation in the crossing, too. The question is whether somebody can get compensated for the efforts in discovery...

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

#133

Post by Kalium »

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #93
randomdata wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a farmer with experience growing roundup-ready crops: In order to obtain roundup-ready seeds you have to sign a contract with the vender. In said agreement, you agree to not do such things. If you want to do whatever you want with your field, don't enter into contractual agreements where you agree to follow certain rules.

In the case being discussed, the neighboring farmer had not signed any agreement with the vendor.

Then he acted in a way that made it clear he was using the patented materials without a license. Specifically, spraying his fields with Round-up that would have killed everything that was not patented.

You can shrug and say "Oh, it was clearly an accident, Monsanto is evil". And Monsanto is certainly evil. It's just reasonably clear why the judge would view this behavior as deliberate and knowing infringement of a patent.

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

#134

Post by ROTMetro »

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.

This just isn't true I got my name on patents working at small companies.

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

#135

Post by TheRealPomax »

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.

Do they? Any adult I've ever talked to sees patents as anything ranging from "a necessary evil" to "literally the worst thing". No one thinks it somehow helps the little guy stick it to the big players. The little guy isn't interested in sticking it to the big players, they're interested in selling to the big players.

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

#136

Post by jmyeet »

I'm very close to the IP abolitionist end of the spectrum. For copyright, give works 20 years of protection. Beyond that you have to start paying hefty fees for 10 year blocks. The fee can double every 10 years. You want a Mickey Mouse ad infinitum copyright? If you're prepared to pay billions for it, go right ahead.

Patents should generally not exist. Software patents should absolutely never exist. The fact that companies game patents so we still have insulin under patent 100 years after its invention by doing minor changes is not just a bad actor, it's a bad system.

GM crops are particularly egregious because seeds don't stay in a field. You can infringe a patent because some animal decided to eat a plant and then relieve itself on your field.

There's another angle though: not only are seed subscriptions (let's face it, that's what this is) just another way to extract the last few dollars from farmers, it's downright anticompetitive. You think the farms Big Ag are operating are paying those fees? Of course not.

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

#137

Post by AdamJacobMuller »

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.

Compulsory licensing of patents as well. I'm a huge fan of compulsory licensing in many industries.

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

#138

Post by ROTMetro »

sethjgore wrote: post #112
HDThoreaun wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patented seeds have funded GMO research which has saved literally hundreds of millions if not billions of lives through famine reduction. Yes it sucks for farmers, but I can't see how it has been anything other than absolute boon for humanity.

Absolute boon for “humanity” is a such abstract notion. The reality is that farmers are robbed and food we eat are way less nutrient dense, etc etc. boon…for whom?

Would there be another way to feed 7+ billion people? How many human lives would you trade for more nutrient dense food?

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

#139

Post by [deleted] »

emadehsan wrote: post #101

> The farmers saved a percentage of the seeds and sowed them again the next spring. However, this is not a lucrative model for profit-oriented multinational companies, since the seed breeders only earn a profit during the first sale and not again every year. Was the "inability of the produced seeds to be sowed again and turn into a crop" intentionally baked into the seeds sold by these companies, purely for profits?…

[deleted]

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

#140

Post by freddref »

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.

Can you give us an example where a smaller company was successful in court against a much larger corp?
Post reply on HN