Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by HDThoreaun » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 9:26 PM UTC

jandrewrogers wrote: post #70

em-bee wrote: post #13

regardless of how the contract is structured, no contract should allow or force a producer to throw products away. this is similar to a law in the EU that forbids producers or distributors of clothing to destroy products they don't want to sell. once you plant a tree to grow fruit you should be allowed to keep harvesting that tree until its natural end. if there is an exclusive contract then the contract must not be…

The optimal quantity of discarded food is not zero.

The optimal quantity of food discarded on a farm should be close to 0 I think. Obviously things rot, but that's not the situation here. For staples it can make sense to systematically overproduce so that we dont starve when things go badly, but ideally you find some other use for the excess like we do with ethanol. But I dont think that thought process plays much of a role with nectarines.

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

#132

Post by nobodyandproud » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 9:40 PM UTC

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…

The heart of the matter is that any licensing and exclusivity rights to our food supply is counter to our interests.

For farmers, the right to grow breeds of crops unencumbered by enforceable contracts is what the public expects.

The exception will be when government forbids certain crops; or encourages certain varieties with incentives.

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

#133

Post by peebee67 » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 9:57 PM UTC

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…

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that plant breeders who develop a new cultivar or variety are generally awarded seven years of exclusivity on registration, which seems reasonable to me. For fruit trees that take 3-6 years to become productive, you could make a good argument for perhaps doubling that time.

In fact, I think a lot of IP law would be better if it resembled this arrangement more closely, in that it would incentivise the actual author, developer, inventor, etc to be rewarded for their work without letting people who had no connection to that work to collect rent for decades or centuries thereafter, long after those people have moved on or died. Walt's grandkids should not still be collecting rents directly from his work.

Extending these rights on plants via patent law is ridiculous on its face to me for all the reasons you've already listed, and should be thwarted at every turn. Using a tool that someone else invented to tweak a species that has existed since before civilisation, and which has been improved throughout civilisation is no more a new invention than changing your irrigation and fertilisation timing to improve yield. It doesn't deserve a patent.

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

#134

Post by peebee67 » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 10:02 PM UTC

sampo wrote: post #81

dbcurtis wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, as an Iowa farm boy (and farm land owner) I have a more nuanced view. There have been hybrid maizes for many decades. It is possible to create unstable hybrids of normal field corns, which serves as a form of intellectual property protection for seed companies. As a farmer, you certainly can go out and plant heirloom varieties that can self-reproduce if you so choose. At which point, the choice of buying hybrid…

Monsanto ceased to exist 8 years ago. It was acquired and absorbed by a bigger company.

It ceased to be independent. It still exists and I have agricultural products at work that still bear its trademark.

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

#135

Post by Suppafly » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 1:50 AM UTC

efitz wrote: post #9

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…

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

Between this comment and few of your others above, it's pretty clear you don't have any concept of how farming works and are just angry about things you don't understand.

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

#136

Post by Suppafly » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 1:52 AM UTC

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...

>The courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser's action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category.

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

#137

Post by Suppafly » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 1:54 AM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #82

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…

If someone grows a new tree from seeds after buying your fruit, their trees will take several years to bear fruit right? Works almost like a patent anyway. (I don't know fruit growing well so maybe that's not true)

You could graft a young tree to a mature one to decrease the time to market.

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

#138

Post by Suppafly » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 1:59 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #19

bluerooibos wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is unbelievably stupid. no company should have rights or patents over a variety of food. Wait until you hear about Monsanto/Bayer - a quick Google of "monsanto food patents" brings up the highlights.

>a quick Google of "monsanto food patents" brings up the highlights. The cases seem fairly reasonable, given how the defendents were basically engaging in selective breeding to copy the traits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#Patent_li...

>The cases seem fairly reasonable, given how the defendents were basically engaging in selective breeding to copy the traits.

This, the people that don't understand farming and buy into weird anti-gmo propaganda always claim that a simple google search agrees with them, but when you actually read the cases, it's clear that the people being sued are always in the wrong.

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

#139

Post by EdwardDiego » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 3:41 AM UTC

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…

Plant variety rights / plant patents exist for the same reason that regular patents do, it's believed that it encourages people to innovate.

Whether or not that's the case, I'll leave to others to argue.

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

#140

Post by Glandalf » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 1:28 PM UTC

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…

Genetic engineering isn’t the same as selective breeding and I’m sure you know this. Confusing the two is shilly, even if you’re not a paid propagandist people will rightly assume you are if you try to confuse well defined terms like you just did.