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

331–340 of 371 posts

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

#331

Post by denton-scratch »

philipkglass wrote: post #206
jandrese wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with ending patents is the alternative is medieval guilds that jealously guard their knowledge, sometimes using lethal force. The great thing about patents is that they force people to publish the knowledge so it won't be lost to the sands of time when they close up shop. That said, our current patent system is problematic for sure. The bar for getting a patent has become far too low as systems have becom…

The great thing about patents is that they force people to publish the knowledge so it won't be lost to the sands of time when they close up shop. That's a benefit that depends on the difficulty of reverse engineering the knowledge from working samples. As analytical instruments and procedures have improved, the relative disclosure benefit of patents has diminished. Worse, patents are increasingly written to hide the…

My father worked for Pilkingtons when they patented the float-glass process.

Lots of companies tried to copy the process (without licensing the patent). They couldn't, because the patent didn't describe all the know-how needed to make the process work. Companies that licensed the patent got the benefit of an on-site engineer that would help them get their process working. So most "plate" glass was thereafter float glass, made by paying licensees.

That is: the invention was really protected not by patents, but by trade secrets. And unlike with the mediaeval guilds, nobody had to be assassinated.

So it seems to me that in addition to being harmful, patents really are unnecessary; as long as there is also know-how. If there is no know-how, then I don't think the patent should be issued. Therefore, there is no need for patents.

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

#332

Post by hinkley »

nine_k wrote: post #299
hinkley wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the goals of regenerative agriculture is to get most of the benefits of fallow land while still using the land. From that standpoint, the math about "but you get less yield" is a bit of a non sequitur. I'm changing the divisor in the equation, which is usually how bad logic slips into an argument predicated on numbers.

Crops on the field are not yet the harvest; grain in a granary is. Harvesting is a very intense process, because the crops need to be collected in the few days when they are best quality and haven't fallen off. Harvesting often occurs around the clock in the season, using monstrous machines. The lower the yield per unit area, the longer it takes to harvest all, the more fuel is spent, and the higher the risk to lose…

We are collecting and redistributing grain at a discount and using it for anything we can think of. Highly processed food, grain alcohol, “corn fed beef” which is likely a dietary disaster for humans.

Remember, ethanol in gasoline is predominantly about lifting demand for corn in order to court votes from the upper Midwest. We don’t actually need to use corn for fuel.

You can feed pigs on grain and nuts that fell before or after harvest. Ten pigs are pretty big harvesting machine. Birds as well.

Mark Shepard is claiming about twice the yield per acre of conventional farms. He’s doing this by getting less than half a yield of four+ crops on the same land. The trick to being Mark Shepard is putting enough time and energy into your job to understand a dozen crops instead of hyper specializing in two, as if your neighbors aren’t doing the exact some thing.

Now at the end of the day, we still need some staple crops around. That we can stockpile grain for three years and canned food for 18-36 months helps level out boom and bust cycles in agriculture. Good year? Rent warehouse space. Bad year? Let the warehouse lapse, or do invasive maintenance.

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

#333

Post by tptacek »

denton-scratch wrote: post #326
pfdietz wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than that: the farmer knew there was slight contamination of his field with Roundup Ready plants. So, he deliberately sprayed the field with Roundup to kill all the others, applying artificial selection to concentrate the trace of contamination. I believe he repeated this more than once. So, he was guilty of engaging in deliberate production of not trace, but concentrated patented seeds.

Hang on. He didn't plant the patented seeds; he planted his own seeds, which were then pollinated by his neighbour's Roundup-Ready plants. I can't see anything wrong with that. So now he has a crop that consists of hybrids. These hybrids are all different; each plant is a different mixture of with Roundup-Ready. Some of those plants will have resistance to glyphosate. Then he sprays with Roundup; the resistant plants…

You can't use selective breeding to escape a patent.

You can argue that patents of all sorts are invalid and shouldn't be granted. That's a totally coherent argument and not one you'll get a lot of pushback about on HN. I don't agree, but I don't, like, viscerally disagree.

The problem is we have a lot of weird special pleading arguments about this particular patent. The most popular argument, which I think we've done a pretty good job debunking here, is that Monsanto will sue you for unwittingly cultivating their seeds, as if they'll just sort of pop out of the woodwork saying "gotcha! you didn't realize it but you owe us one million dollars!". That never happens. You got in trouble with Monsanto if you quite wittingly applied their patented system, full stop.

Similarly, it's kind of a weird special pleading argument to say that a Monsanto seed can blow onto your property, and then, like, it's just something growing in the ground, man, you can't outlaw a plant, and two or three growth cycles later you somehow have a Roundup Ready seed that is unencumbered by patents. A good rule of thumb is that if you've filled in the "???" in the Underpants Gnome construction --- here: "1. seeds blow onto field, 2. ???, 3. profit", something has gone wrong with your logic. The direct conclusion of your logic is that these farmers could in fact go into business competing with Monsanto selling GM crops. Obviously: no.

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

#334

Post by pfdietz »

bob29 wrote: post #325
pfdietz wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, your objection to patents is that they are enforced when violated?

No. Objection when they are overly broad generic obvious and\or trivial Am surprised even need to explain on this forum of coders. Many examples of bad boy software patents.

And you evidence that the patents for these potatoes was "overly broad generic obvious and/or trivial" is...?

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

#335

Post by pfdietz »

denton-scratch wrote: post #328
pfdietz wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GM crops are actually one of the areas (along with pharmaceuticals) where patents are most legitimate. Crop plants are literally things that manufacture themselves; the barrier to entry if patents didn't exist would be negligible. No one could justify the effort to create new plant varieties.

But plant patents are new. People have been breeding new strains since the dawn of farming. Ergo, people were able to justify the effort.

People were inventing things long before patents existed. That doesn't mean patents are worthless. Let's not engage in foolishly binary thinking, where "things are invented" and "things aren't invented" are the only two states.

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

#336

Post by BeFlatXIII »

tptacek wrote: post #22
luoc wrote: post #20

I remember, there was a case where a farmer grew patented plants on his field. They spread to his neighbours field who then got sued by the patent holding company for not licensing that plant. My memory is a bit fuzzy here but you get the idea. Now, how about reversing that? Think of a GPL-like licensed plant that makes all derived plants also inheriting that license. Legally poisoning the binary distribution format…

No, he got sued by the patent holding company for using those seeds and then spraying them with Roundup , which would have killed off his crop had they not been the patented seeds. This is true of all the cases of people being sued for cultivating "Roundup-Ready" crops: the story they want to tell is that they were sued for cultivating seeds that accidentally wound up on their fields, but the facts established at tri…

That patent still should be enforced by any sensible court system.

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

#337

Post by seunosewa »

xphilter wrote: post #324
breput wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a deep misunderstanding about how modern farms work. Farmers are smart - they have to do because there is no iterating on a bad crop. You fail once or twice (often because of reasons beyond your control like the weather) and you can be out of business. And failing might not be known until a 6-9 month long harvest. Farmers love "Big Ag"'s seeds not because they are naive, but because they have a local sale re…

Yeah, I don't know why you think farmers are "smart" (taking this meaning to convey that we shouldn't question their practices). If you pump enough water and fertilizer into the already-fertile land you can get things to grow. Wow. If farmers were actually smart they'd start thinking long term on how their practices are destroying their livelihood (draining aquifers, polluting rivers, degrading soil quality) or how t…

It looks easy until you face pests, diseases, soil nutrient deficiencies, drought, unfavourable market conditions leading to losses etc. And it's a low margin business so you need to do everything with maximum efficiency to stay ahead.

A programming analogy: Anyone can write an hello world program in Python after a 10 minute tutorial, but delivering software that you can make a living from is much harder.

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

#338

Post by BeFlatXIII »

pfdietz wrote: post #33
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…

That patents genes spread lightly onto his field didn't give him a "get out of patent free card" to then concentrate those genes by spraying the field with herbicide. The courts properly understood that intent and actions matter here. The farmer was in the wrong and justice was done.

> and justice was done

That's one of the stupidest things I've read on this website.

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

#339

Post by BeFlatXIII »

Kalium wrote: post #131
RajT88 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let it be abused and let nature take its course. Investors can get stiffed.

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

#340

Post by BeFlatXIII »

Kalium wrote: post #133
ProjectArcturis wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pa…

We shouldn't enforce absurd patents like that in the first place. What's the worst that happens? Some old people starve because their retirement investments tank?
Post reply on HN